Q15 - Amoebas, like human beings...

[smiller]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premises:
Humans and amoebas respond the same way to things that cause physical damage.
and
Humans respond this way because the situation causes pain.

Conclusion:
All microscopic organisms feel pain.

Answer Anticipation:
There are two flaws in this argument. First, even if humans respond because of pain, amoebas could be responding for a different reason. Maybe amoebas have some type of simple, automatic response that doesn't involve pain.

The second flaw involves the phrase "all microscopic organisms" in the conclusion. Even if amoebas do feel pain, does that prove that all microscopic organisms do?

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is the correct answer. It contains premises and a conclusion that have the same logical structure as the stimulus, and it exhibits the same flaws. We can't make a conclusion about the poets' behavior based on what causes the behavior in people under hypnosis. We can't generalize from "poets" to "all artists."

(B) This answer lacks an important flaw: it doesn't overgeneralize from corporations in the stimulus to some larger group. Also, the conclusion in this answer choice is much weaker: "probably also the main motive" doesn't quite match "must also be" in the stimulus.

(C) This argument doesn't exhibit either flaw from the stimulus. It doesn't make an invalid comparison, and doesn't overgeneralize. The first premise tells us that most professional athletes have the same reason for practicing regularly. There isn't a real problem with concluding that skaters probably practice for the same reason as boxers.

(D) The conclusion in this answer is not a match. We start out by comparing predatory birds with other predatory animals who hunt alone. We then give a reason why some of the other animals hunt alone. So far, so good. However, the premise doesn't overgeneralize. It takes a premise about predatory birds in general and draws a conclusion about one type of bird. Furthermore, the conclusion in this answer is that hawks hunt alone, not that they hunt alone for the same reason as predatory mammals.

(E) This answer choice lacks one of the flaws we need. We don't overgeneralize from British Columbia in the premise to something more general in the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: When the stimulus in a Match the Flaw question contains more than one flaw, the correct answer must contain the same flaws. Watch out for answers that only contain one of the flaws, but not the other.

#officialexplanation

[emilynotini]

This one was kind of a tricky parallel flaw question. The reason I really didn't like this question is because I feel as though someone who lacked the knowledge of exactly what an amoeba is would not be able to determine the flawed method of argument. You have to infer that an amoeba is only one example of a microscopic organism to be able to understand why the conclusion is drawn. This would require former knowledge that an amoeba is a type of microscopic organism. Oh well, here's my reasoning:

The stimulus basically states:

Amoebas (one example of a microscopic organism), similar to human beings, usually withdraw from something that causes them physical damage. Humans do this because it causes them pain. So, all microscopic organisms must also do this because it causes them pain.

Trying to break it down into basic parts:

A (a type of C), similar to B, usually withdraw from something that causes them physical damage. B does this because of _____. So, all C must be capable of ______.

The question stem asks us which answer choice most closely exhibits similar flawed reasoning. Answer choice A hits the nail on the head.

It states: Poets (a type of artist), like people under hypnosis, usually use language weirdly. People under hypnosis do this because of _____. So, all artists must have _____.

Breaking it down:

A (a type of C), like B, usually use language weirdly. B does this because of _____. So, all C must have ______.

[pewals13]

Eliminations:

(B) Conclusion doesn't match also there is no shift from the discussion of a subset to the set as a whole (amoebas------>all microscopic organisms in the original)

(C) Conclusion is way off

(D) Conclusion is way off

(E) Confusing but "partly because low lying areas are too hot and arid" is a mismatch compared to "humans do this because" in the original

[Antnat]

I see that A matches the stimulus almost perfectly. One thing that bothered me was was the last part of the conclusion in (A), "All artists must have lower inhibitions than most people have." Is this part completely irrelevant? It feels like its adding an element that doesn't exist in the stimulus. Otherwise, I see A is an almost perfect match.