Q21 - A small car offers less

[timmydoeslsat]

I would like to talk about this question since I did not get this right when I looked at it today.

This is a parallel the reasoning question stem, in which we find out that the stimulus is flawed.

The stimulus essentially goes like this:

Even though A does not have a characteristic that B contains, A does have this other characteristic that B lacks. Therefore, A is better than B because this characteristic that A has may be a factor in making an occurrence less likely.

We know this is flawed because we cannot state that something is better than other thing because that one thing has a favorable aspect to it. The other issue is that in reaching the conclusion, we have a causal factor that has not been proven. We have a correlation of, in this case, of maneuverability causing accidents to be less likely.

I go through the answer choices with this in mind.

Answer choices:

A) No aspect of selecting one has better than another because of a characteristic that one thing has and the other does not.

B) Concludes something is best to do something because of one beneficial aspect. This is flawed. Keep for now.

C) Concludes that something is more practical than another thing based on just two reasons. This is flawed. Keep for now.

D) Concludes that something is better than another way because of one beneficial aspect that is mentioned. This is flawed. Keep for now.

E) Almost fell out of my chair when I saw that this was the right answer.

It has no better concept between two objects being compared. It has a should aspect to it that the stimulus does not have.

I realize now in hindsight, looking at how the correct answer was reached, is that this answer is correct because it mirrors the stimulus in the way of: A certain way/thing is advocated on the grounds that it can be beneficial to a problem in one way while not considering how the other way can also factor into it being just as beneficial.

I felt like I had a solid grasp on the stimulus, but I missed a crucial dimension of it.

I felt that the should - better difference from the answer choice to the stimulus was too much of a leap to make it parallel.

[noah]

Tough problem! I think one place you went wrong is that your job here is not to find the flaw. In fact, I wouldn't say the stimulus is a tragically flawed argument. In LSAT terms, it's flawed in that it assumes that having a comparatively reduced likelihood of an accident means an option is better than another.

Here's how I looked at this matching question:

The argument breaks down to

S is better than L
Why? Even though L is better when bad thing X occurs, with S you're less likely to have bad thing X occur in the first place.

I start by looking for a conclusion match: S is better than L.

(A) is out - something can diminish...

(B) is out - "best to insist that a child spend at least some time..." is not saying that something is better than something else.

(C) is OK.

(D) is out - moderation is not better.

(E) is OK.

So, we're left with (C) and (E) as we look at the premises. We're looking for something that has S better than L because of a factor that makes a bad thing less likely (thus making it relatively unimportant that L is better in case of the bad thing happening).

(C) is close! The premise and counter premise do relate, but not in the same way that the stimulus' does. Here we have the preferred item causing the bad thing (replacement) to happen more often, even though when that bad thing happens it is better. It's basically the reverse.

(E) has got it. Exercise does put you at a disadvantage compared to an average person's activity level when you get sick, but you're less likely to get sick in the first place with exercise.

And, once again, the LSAT promotes healthy living.

I hope that helps.

[austindyoung]

I got this problem correct- but I guess what was difficult for me- at first, was organizing the argument- because a counter-premise is actually part of the Core here.

So- after we sift through A-D- (E) ends up matching perfectly, I thought. I had left (D) as a contender- but once you get to (E), its the obvious winner.

The reason I didn't look for a flaw here- is because I read that after a certain PT (I do not remember which one- but this one is included), that the LSAT will actually state in the stem of a parallel Q that it is flawed.

Anybody hear different?

With that in mind, I focused not on finding a flaw, but the abstraction of the stimulus.

[shirando21]

Many thanks to both Tommy and Noah.

[Nina]

Thanks for explanation. I also have a question regarding the flawed reasoning in Matching Questions. I assume that the argument in the stimulus won't be flawed unless the question stem has mentioned it as "flawed pattern of reasoning" or "erroneous pattern of reasoning" etc. Am i correct about this point?

Thanks a lot!

[noah]

Thanks for explanation. I also have a question regarding the flawed reasoning in Matching Questions. I assume that the argument in the stimulus won't be flawed unless the question stem has mentioned it as "flawed pattern of reasoning" or "erroneous pattern of reasoning" etc. Am i correct about this point?

Thanks a lot!

Actually, they can slip in a flawed argument without saying so -- rare, but it happens.

[cyt5015]

Tough problem! I think one place you went wrong is that your job here is not to find the flaw. In fact, I wouldn't say the stimulus is a tragically flawed argument. In LSAT terms, it's flawed in that it assumes that having a comparatively reduced likelihood of an accident means an option is better than another.

Here's how I looked at this matching question:

The argument breaks down to

S is better than L
Why? Even though L is better when bad thing X occurs, with S you're less likely to have bad thing X occur in the first place.

I start by looking for a conclusion match: S is better than L.

(A) is out - something can diminish...

(B) is out - "best to insist that a child spend at least some time..." is not saying that something is better than something else.

(C) is OK.

(D) is out - moderation is not better.

(E) is OK.

So, we're left with (C) and (E) as we look at the premises. We're looking for something that has S better than L because of a factor that makes a bad thing less likely (thus making it relatively unimportant that L is better in case of the bad thing happening).

(C) is close! The premise and counter premise do relate, but not in the same way that the stimulus' does. Here we have the preferred item causing the bad thing (replacement) to happen more often, even though when that bad thing happens it is better. It's basically the reverse.

(E) has got it. Exercise does put you at a disadvantage compared to an average person's activity level when you get sick, but you're less likely to get sick in the first place with exercise.

And, once again, the LSAT promotes healthy living.

I hope that helps.

Dear LSAT geeks,
It seems that you matched the "less likely to happen" in stimulus with the "decrease the chance" in answer E, and you rejected answer C because the conclusion is about "practical" not "chance". Is my understanding correct?

One more thing is that the stimulus mentioned "smaller car is more maneuverable", but in answer E I cannot find an advantage of exercise vigorously to decrease the chance of illness. I think the answer E should say something like "exercise improves immune system".

I'm confused, please help me here. Thank you!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Some really great questions cyt5015!

First, the phrases "decreases the chances" and "will be less likely" are essentially synonymous, and play a part in supporting the match between (E) and the the stimulus.

(C), however, is wrong not because "practical" misaligns with chance. It's wrong because of how the two alternatives it evaluates relate to each other, and which one it decides is better. Let's break it down.

The conclusion in (C) is that light cars are "more practical" than heavy ones. This fairly parallel to the stimulus (small cars are "better to drive" than large ones), and also to (E) (which implies that exercising vigorously every day is better than not).

Let's lay out all three arguments:

STIMULUS
large car = better in catastrophe (more protection in accident)
small car = catastrophe less likely (accident less often)
THEREFORE: small is better

(C)
light cars = better in catastrophe (cheaper to replace)
heavy cars = catastrophe less likely (replacement less often)
THEREFORE: light is better

(E)
average (non-exerciser) = better in catastrophe (more fat in wasting illness)
daily exercise = catastrophe less likely (less likely wasting illness)
THEREFORE: exercise is better

Both the stimulus and (E) pick the option that makes catastrophe less likely, while (C) picks the option that does less damage in the catastrophe!


As for your second question, I completely understand what you mean about looking for a reason why exercise decreases the chance of illness. To be perfectly honest, I looked for the same thing! But while I would have been happier to find an answer that contained it, that issue is a minor syntax issue compared to these broad brushstrokes of logical structure. Does that make sense?

[asafezrati]

The conclusion in the stimulus says that S is better, but E concludes that someone SHOULD exercise vigorously.
How do you match up these differences between positive and normative?

Also, there is an issue with other options.
Does the conclusion in the stimulus speak about S's superiority in comparison to L alone (seems more reasonable in its context - they compared S to L a second ago!) or does it say that S is superior to all options, not only S?
E certainly assumes that if there are any other options, they are not as good as exercising vigorously.

This is just wrong.

[layamaheshwari]

I'd also like to point out that in parallel reasoning questions, answer choices with the same topic as the stimulus (in this case, small vs large cars) are almost always a red flag: I've encountered very few questions (if any) where they turn out to be right. That also put C at a disadvantage for me.

Anyone else feel the same?

[AyakiK696]

Why is "moderation" in D a mismatch for something that is better, like in the stimulus? Can't we say that "moderation" is better than "a diet totally lacking sugar and fat"? I think I understand the flaw better after reading everyone's explanations, but I still don't quite see what makes D definitively wrong.... Can someone please help me with this? Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm looking for something that fits this:

IN A CERTAIN BAD SITUATION
Y is better than X

BUT,
since X has this positive quality

X is LESS LIKELY TO EVER ENCOUNTER THE BAD SITUATION

(D) doesn't seem to have a match for that first ingredient.

There's nothing that says,
IN THE EVENT OF AN UNCONTROLLED BINGE,
it's better to have moderate sugar/fat than no sugar/fat

[JeremyK460]

Breakdown:
Smaller cars have more maneuverability
Larger cars offer more protection in accidents.

Smaller cars are better to drive because they’re less likely to have an accident.

Stimulus:
Accident Protection → S < L
Maneuver → S > ‘not-S’
Likely Wreck → S < ‘not-S’

Answer E:
Fat-Eating Illness → E < A
Protect From Illness → E > ‘not-E’
Likely Illness → E > ‘not-E’

Answer C:
Practicality → L > H
Longevity → L < H
Cheaper → L > H

Answer Choices:
(A) There’s nothing comparative expressed. These are categorical & hypothetical propositions in support of a causal conclusion. That differs from the stimulus which are qualitative comparative claims.

(B) To say ‘X is best’ is a superlative claim, a claim that the argument doesn’t make. The stimulus is comparative: ‘X is better than Y / not-X’ while this answer seems to be some sort of modal claim ‘X may cause U when P’; this type of claim isn’t expressed in the stimulus.

(D) The conclusion is a normative claim, so that sort of matches, but it’s supported by two normative claims while the stimulus supports a normative claim with comparative propositions. This isn’t similar.

Some Differences Between Answers (C) and (E):
What turned me off from (C) was its quantitative evaluation conclusion/thesis. The stimulus felt like more of a qualitative evaluation. Quantitative deals with some sort of enumeration (answer (C) deals with money/price). Qualitative deals with some sort of interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter (answer (E) deals with ‘what’s better’). Also, qualitative evaluation is inductive in nature; arguments that are inductive support the likelihood of a broad idea drawn from relevant & specific examples.

The stimulus’s conclusion and answer (E)’s conclusion is broad/undistributed: (small car / exercising) is better (than non-small cars / non-exercising). Answer (C) doesn’t have a similar frame of reference as Answer (E) and the stimulus (in the case of an accident / illness).

Answer / Stimulus Structure:
For this work, vehicles built of lightweight materials are more practical than vehicles built of heavy materials. This is so because while lighter vehicles do not last as long as heavier vehicles, they are cheaper to replace.

Increasing Comparative: Lightweights are more practical than heavyweights.
Decreasing Comparative: Lightweights do not last as long as heavyweights.
Given Environment: None.
Thesis Statement (Comparative; Cost Benefit): Lightweights are cheaper to replace than heavyweights.

A small car offers less protection in an accident than a large car does, but since a smaller car is more maneuverable, it is better to drive a small car because then accidents will be less likely.

Decreasing Comparative: Small car offers less protection in an accident than a large car.
Increasing Comparative: Small cars are more maneuverable (than not-smaller cars).
Given Environment: Getting into an accident
Thesis Statement (Normative; Established Quality): Small cars are better to drive because they are less likely than a large car to get into an accident.

A person who exercises vigorously every day has less body fat than an average person to draw upon in the event of a wasting illness. But one should still endeavor to exercise vigorously every day, because doing so significantly decreases the chances of contracting a wasting illness.

Decreasing Comparative: Exerciser has less body fat to draw from in case of illness than avg. person does.
[u]Increasing Comparative: Exerciser is more likely to not get illness (than non-exerciser)
Given Environment: Contracting a fat-eating illness.
Thesis Statement (Normative; Established Quality): Exerciser should still exercise.