Q21 - Each of the candidates in

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Most of this year's candidates have the necessary skills.
Evidence: All of this year's candidates are small business owners. Most small business owners are competent managers, and all competent managers have the necessary skills.

Answer Anticipation:
Has the author even proven that ANY of this year's candidates have the necessary skills? No. All we know about these candidates is that they are small business owners. Most small business owners are competent, but that doesn't mean that any of THESE small business owners are competent. The author is assuming "Most of this year's candidates are competent, thus they have the necessary skills." Symbolically, we want to replicate these ingredients:
All X's are A.
Most A's are B.
All B's are C.
-------------
Thus, Most X's are C.

I would plan to first find the conclusion, so that I know who is "X". Then I'll track that idea through the evidence and see if it goes the same way.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) X = upper mgmt. We need a premise that says "everyone in upper mgmt is A". There is nothing like that, so eliminate.

(B) X = menu items. All X's are fat free. Most fat free are sugar free. All sugar free are low cal. Thus, most X are low cal. This looks good! On a timed test, I would probalby pick B and circle the question number to remind myself to come back if I had time.

(C) Conclusion is not a "most" claim, so this looks like a non-starter.

(D) X = this year's festival films.We need a premise that says "all of this year's festival films are A". Instead, we get "all of this year's AVANT GARDE festival films are A". No good, eliminate.

(E) X = plastic helmets. We need a premise that says "all of the plastic helmets are A". Nothing like that, so eliminate.

Takeaway/Pattern: There are other issues to pick on with some of these answers, but I tried to show the quickest way to size up and eliminate the wrong ones. Since this flaw involved conditional logic and "most" statements, it behooves us to think of it pretty mechanically and to have a firm vision of the symbolic recipe we're looking to re-create. Since answer choices like to vary the order of ingredients, I find it helpful to start by finding the conclusion so that I know where to begin matching things up to my original template.

#officialexplanation

[AllyMaeBell]

Please see the attached explanation. Hope it helps!

[sukim764]

Hi,

I would greatly appreciate if you can elaborate the process involved in the assessment of answer choice E:
"E) Again, the conclusion assumes too little, not too much. If every helmet with rubber has
plastic, then ALL helmets with plastic have rubber, not MOST."

I'm just not seeing how you were able to get the last deduction. Here's what I have so far:

Helm > Plastic
Helm most Rubber
Rubber > Plastic

Therefore, Helms with Plastic most Rubber.
(It seems to me a valid reasoning, based on combining the first two premises)

Please let me know if I'm overlooking something, but I just don't see how you got to All Helm with Plastic > Rubber.

Thanks

[samantha.b233]

I chose E initially. So I think I might be able to offer some ideas here.

The questions stems goes like this: 1) all candidates are small-business owner, 2) most SBOs are competent managers, 3) competent manager has the skills, and therefore 4) most candidates have the skills.

You can see the structure is basically, A=B, most B are C, C has D, and therefore most A has D.

The structure of answer choice B is like this: 1) all items on the menu is fat-free (A=B), 2) most FF are sugar-free (most B are C), 3) all SF food are low in calories (C are D, logically the same as C has D), and therefore 4) most items are low in calories (most A are D).

The structure of answer choice E is like this: 1) all bike helmets have some plastic in them (A has B, which is logically the same as A=B), 2) most bike helmets have rubber (most A has C) -- you can basically stop here, because you can see this is different from the question stem.

The reason why A has B is logically the same as A=B is that to say that A has B is the same as to say A is the thing that has property B. Therefore these two are logically the same.

[redskateboard]

Hi,

I would greatly appreciate if you can elaborate the process involved in the assessment of answer choice E:
"E) Again, the conclusion assumes too little, not too much. If every helmet with rubber has
plastic, then ALL helmets with plastic have rubber, not MOST."

I'm just not seeing how you were able to get the last deduction. Here's what I have so far:

Helm > Plastic
Helm most Rubber
Rubber > Plastic

Therefore, Helms with Plastic most Rubber.
(It seems to me a valid reasoning, based on combining the first two premises)

Please let me know if I'm overlooking something, but I just don't see how you got to All Helm with Plastic > Rubber.

Thanks

E has valid reasoning. The stimulus does not. Therefore E's pattern of reasoning is not similar to the stimulus.