Q21 - The studies showing that increased

[lianghuang98]

How to approach this parallel reasoning question? Why A is correct? My choice is D. I am very confused about it and it is fairly time consuming.

[dan]

Thanks for the post. This is a difficult question.

Here's the logic of the original argument:

1. Studies show that produce may help decrease incidence of some cancers.
2. But the studies don’t distinguish between organic and nonorganic produce;
3. in these studies, some of the produce had pesticide residue.
4. Thus, the studies also show that pesticide residue causes no increased health risk.

First, the author makes a distinction between organic produce (no pesticides) and nonorganic produce (pesticides).

The flaw occurs in #4. The author takes

consume produce in general --> decrease in incidence of some cancers

to mean

consume nonorganic produce (pesticide residue) --> no increase in overall health risk

We want to identify the same logic in our answer choice.

In (A), we see a similar pattern. First, the author makes a distinction between nuclear power plants and non-nuclear plants. Then, the author uses the same flawed logic as in the original. The author takes

modern power plant --> decrease in incidence of certain major illnesses

to mean

nuclear power plant --> no increase in overall health risk

This is a good match.

In order for (D) to be correct, it would have to say:

Research shows that washing cutting boards leads to a decreased risk of contracting certain illnesses caused by microbes. But this research does not make a distinction between wooden and plastic cutting boards. The fact that this tendency is present regardless of whether the cutting board is wooden or plastic shows that there is no increased health risk (overall) from using wooden cutting boards.

(D) is tempting because it does make a distinction between wooden and plastic boards, but the overall structure is not the same as the original.

Hope that helps.

dan

[lisahollchang]

This helps a lot! Thanks!

[bigtree65]

I chose A but had trouble getting rid of C and E, can someone please explain how they're wrong?

[etwcho]

I believe you can quickly get through this one just by looking at the conclusions of each answers.

Conclusion: There is no increased health risk....+ New element

a) "there is no increased health risk..." + New element (nuclear) Perfect!
b) More useful? No such relative comparison in the stimulus
c) "there is not an inherently greater risk.." I can see how the first half matches up but the latter half goes on comparing A and B. Remember that the author compared A and B but somehow got to the conclusion that C (pesticides) isn't harmful. In c) conclusion doesn't have that third element).
d) Same reason as c)
e) In the latter half of the conclusion, e) gives a condition "so long as...." No such condition was given in the stim.

[sportsfan8491]

I saw the flaw in this question a little differently and would like to try to explain it in general terms. Experts, please feel free to correct me or add on to anything that I've said here.

The flaw in the stimulus is that the conclusion goes well beyond the scope of the research findings. More specifically, some benefit (decreased incidence of some cancers) with some of an element present (pesticide residues) doesn't allow us to conclude NO drawbacks whatsoever with the element present. The pesticide residues might bring along their own set of problems that we aren't aware of and since the studies didn't look at this associated element (pesticide residue) in great detail, we simply can't conclude that the element presents no increased risks to health; that it doesn't have any drawbacks. So going to the answers I was looking for:

"some benefit with some of an element present doesn't mean NO DRAWBACKS with the element present"

(A) Perfect! The general template that you create in your mind should allow you to see this answer almost immediately. Some benefit (a decrease in the incidence of some major illnesses) with some of an element present (nuclear) doesn't mean that there are NO drawbacks (no increased health risk) with the element present ('nuclear' power plant). The conclusion goes well beyond the scope of the research findings! At this point, it's time to move on, but for the sake of it, here is why the other answer are wrong.

(B) is wrong for several reasons. First, where is the "some benefit" in the first premise? I don't think you can equate "no long-term risk" with "some benefit," so at this point I'd stop reading and move to the next answer choice. But let's say you kept reading to the end because you did equate the two ideas I just mentioned. So, now what? Well, looking at the conclusion, it's even more off from the original argument/passage than the premise we're given here. We don't get the "NO drawbacks" general claim and this conclusion is a comparative statement, which is something the original argument/passage doesn't give us in the conclusion.

(C) This is wrong because conclusion is qualified and it isn't as strong as the original argument's conclusion; it doesn't say "NO drawbacks"...goodbye answer choice (C)!

(D) This is wrong because the premise is way off. It doesn't give us the "some benefit" statement that we require, but tells us that there are significant numbers of microbes left on the cutting boards even after they've been washed and the comparative statement that follows is completely irrelevant as well. Don't let them fool you into thinking that the comparative statement that follows after the comma provides a benefit because it really doesn't. 'Fewer' could be one less microbe and this doesn't seem like a benefit to me...plus, ewww and yuck!

(E) This is wrong because it negates the chance of there being "some benefit" in the first sentence. If you read past the second sentence in this answer choice, you are wasting your precious time on the test.

I think this question shows how important it is to have a good paraphrase of the general flaw down before moving on to the answer choices. Some good work up-front allows me to rule out some answers without even having to read the entire answer choice, like (B) and (E) for example. Please note that this is my personal preference. I'd still recommend reading the entire answer choice as you're learning these questions, but I personally spend a bit more time up-front to save more time on the answer choices for these parallel the flaw questions, in timed situations of course. This seems to work for me. To each their own!

I hope my explanation is helpful.