Q20 - According to sources who can

[Ejd5050]

Can someone explain why the answer is b?

[ss_8185]

Can someone explain why the answer is b?

Hi there, here's my two cents on this question...

The stimulus concludes that M will be the only candidate running based on the evidence: if M runs J will not and M is going to run. From those pieces of evidence the conclusion does not follow, because all we know is if M runs J definitely will not it, the stimulus does not let us infer that all other possible candidates besides J won't run either because M is running. The stimulus also does not allow us to infer that M and J are the only two possible candidates.

If M then ~J, so M only

B matches this because it concludes Saturday is the ONLY day the coaster performs based on the evidence that if the coaster performs and Saturday it will not perform on Friday and it will definitely be performing Saturday. Performing on Saturday does not mean they can't perform on any of the other days besides Friday.

If F then ~S, so F only


---------------------------------
A- concludes that downtown shopping will not be viable next year, why? Because Brown is moving and without Brown no large store will be attracted to the downtown area.

(LSA= large stores attracted, BP=Brown's present)
If LSA then BP, from this alone we can see how it doesn't match the structure above. The contra of this is If ~BP then ~LSA. The conclusion uses the contra but concludes downtown shopping will not be viable. This choice also does not match because it lacks the only component.

C- conclusion: S will not get job. Why? If they were impressed by M then they thought less of S, and they were impressed by M. Here the evidence do not provide the If M then ~S as we had in the stimulus. Because thinking less of S does not mean S is not selected. Even it had that it would not match because the conclusion above has an only component while this choice just says Sven will probably not get the job.

D-This choice provides us with that necessary premises we wanted in the stimulus, "since these two are the only people who could be involved" the reasoning here is valid.

E-Conclusion we should buy this book. Why? If TB is best then ~OB is best while this loosely resembles the stimulus, once again we lack the only component because the conclusion limits itself and says we should buy the best book, not that the best book is the only book we should buy. (TB=this book, OB=other book)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation ss_8185!

[Mab6q]

I think the flaw committed in this argument is a false dilemma/dichotomy - the argument assumes that there are only two options.

B is the only other choices that contains this flaw. Maybe the concert will play on another day besides Saturday.

[jewels0602]

I really thought the answer choice would be D because the stimulus involved two people, and it started out with the robbery but ended with police arresting a detail that I thought was similar to mayoral election but then conclusion just talking about an elections. (even if Dr. Esposito is the only candidate running in mayoral election, it doesn't meant she is the only one running in the any election... similar to AC D.. even if Robert is the only one who committed the crime, he's not the only one police need to arrest... there could be tons of other criminals they need to arrest)...

Upon review, I do see why B is a better answer choice because it explicitly sets a false dichotomy as the poster above said, but in flaw questions, I have trouble at times deciding what flaws to hone in on or what characteristics to match and what not to match because it REALLY varies in terms of subtleties...

[a.compean6786]

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I can't seem to completely debunk A, even with the explanation offered. Perhaps I may be able to understand it by attempting to see how A has to be changed to be right.

Is that possible? Or am I completely left field? I just can't seem to grasp the difference that eliminates this answer. Thanks a million in advance!

Edit: Perhaps if the conclusion for A read: Therefore, Brown's store is the only store that makes the downtown center a viable shopping district"?

[episcopoandrew]

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I can't seem to completely debunk A, even with the explanation offered. Perhaps I may be able to understand it by attempting to see how A has to be changed to be right.

Is that possible? Or am I completely left field? I just can't seem to grasp the difference that eliminates this answer. Thanks a million in advance!

Edit: Perhaps if the conclusion for A read: Therefore, Brown's store is the only store that makes the downtown center a viable shopping district"?

The problem with answer choice A is that it doesn't have the same flaw as the stimulus does. It talks about Brown's stores leaving, and says that without it, no other large stores will move in. Therefore, the area won't be a decent shopping district. But that logic seems good to me if you accept the premises. I can't see any flaw in A. Remember with flaw questions we want to focus on the gap between the premises and the conclusion.

Now if A said something like, 'If Brown's stores moves out, the one rival store won't move in. Therefore, no large store will move in." That would have the same false dichotomy flaw as in the stimulus. We don't know if there's a third store that would move in or not.