Q13 - Each of the smallest particles

[noah]

This question requires us to eliminate all the answers that match the flaw in the stimulus. The stimulus' conclusion is that the universe has a simple structure -- why? Because each particle has a simple structure. But perhaps the universe arranges those structures in a very complex manner! The flaw, to summarize, is that just because the parts of a whole have a certain characteristic, it does not mean that the whole will have that characteristic as well.

(B) does not have that flaw. If all the pieces of a desk are made of metal, we can definitely say that the desk is made of metal. What else could it be made of?

As for the wrong answers:
(A) has the same flaw as the original. Even though the parts are great, perhaps the great parts were not put together well.
(C) has the same flaw. Maybe all those rectangular bricks were used to form an octagonal wall?
(D) is similar - perhaps the sturdy wood was badly assembled.
(E) is the same - maybe those great sentences are strung together in a horrible fashion.


#officialexplanation

[nzheng]

Hi, I am failing to see why B is the right answer. I chose A, so could you please explain the answer choices? thanks.

[aznriceboi17]

Is it not strange that the correct answer B uses the reasoning pattern as the stimulus: it infers that because the individual components possess a certain quality (made of metal), the resulting whole (desk) has that quality?

All the answer choices do that, the only difference in B is that for the quality it discusses, the components having it imply that the whole has it, so it's not flawed.

I guess I was just looking for a completely different pattern of reasoning in the correct answer -- what B does seems to be playing with fire for an early question.

[tommywallach]

Hmm. It's not quite the same, though I see what you mean. Metal is an intrinsic characteristic in a way that the other characteristics are not, so the pieces can't differ from the whole.

-t

[hayleychen12]

After some discussion with my friend about this one, I'll try to write down our understandings here, any further clarification will be appreciated!

As discussed above, the structural flaw (I invented this phrase my self:) correct me if it is wrong)of the stimulus and all the answer choices are the same, "since part of something has/is xxx, this something has/is xxx"

But what made B right and A C D E wrong?

I think the more intrinsic part lies in the difference between two concept" composed by " and " have the property of "
Composed by something is more essential.

So the flaw in the stimulus is: part of something has a certain property so this whole something has that property. So is applied to A C D E .
However B: part of something is composed by xxx, so this whole something must be composed by xxx. Which from my point of view, is logically airtight.

Any further discussion is more than welcome, I'm not a native speaker, so feel really uneasy on this one.

And here is a further question I want to ask concerning this question type:
For this "flawed reasoning" type, it seems like we not only need to analyze the structural flaw(which is what we normally do), but we also need to pay attention to the content of the stimulus as well as all the answer choices. Am I on the right track?

[CarolL800]

The flaw with this question is that-- if every "part" has certain characteristics, then the "whole" must have those same characteristics. In this case, it's saying that each of the smallest particles has a simple structure. Thus, the universe has a simple structure.

When you asked if you also need to pay attention to the content, I think it is true to try to understand... Initially, I looked at this problem by being too technical and made a careless mistake. Keep in mind that some part to whole & whole to part situations are actually valid. But this one is flawed-- why?

Even though the tiny unit (particle) is very simple, it does not mean that all those tiny particles together make a simple structure. Those simple structures could combine to make a complex structure. So it's invalid for us to conclude that "the universe has a simple structure."
(Another example-- I used the most delicious foods from all over the world and thus, was able to make a delicious dish. Valid or invalid? Invalid! Let's say I took pizza, sushi, curry and concocted something with that-- gross!!)

So we're looking for 4 matching flawed answers (part to whole) and 1 that is not matching flaw (might not be a part to whole flaw/ could be a totally different flaw... or it just might be valid). Two things to ask yourself-- is it a flaw? is it matching?
(A) It's a flaw. In terms of matching to the original argument, you might think this is iffy because it says "from an engineering point of view" rather than directly saying, "Therefore this car is nearly perfectly engineered." It's basically the same thing, but we can leave it for now and come back to it.
(B)- This is not a flaw. Why? It says that every part of this desk is made of metal. If every single part of this desk is made of metal, we can say that this desk is made of metal.
(C)- Just because each brick in this wall is rectangular does not mean that the wall has to be rectangular...What if they created a fish shaped wall with rectangular bricks?
(D)- Each piece of wood in the chair is sturdy, but the chair itself doesn't have to be sturdy. What if they created the chair by just stacking the pieces of wood carelessly, thus making the chair super wobbly?
(E)- Just because 1 sentence in the book is amazing doesn't mean that the book is amazing-- it's a matching flaw.