Q6 - Of the many test pilots

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Match the Reasoning

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: The test pilot flying the plane tomorrow will probably not find it hard to operate.
Evidence: Many test pilots have previously flown this plane, and none have found it hard to operate.

Any prephrase?
Many A's have previously tried X and all had experience Y. Thus, the next A that tries X will probably also have experience Y.

Answer choice analysis:
A) "previous book reviewers" vs. "average reader" not a good match for "previous A's" vs. "next A"

B) "many" found it entertaining is not a good match for "all previous A's had experience Y"

C) "Two previous previewers" isn't a great match for "many previous test pilots"

D) Looks good.

E) "reviewers" vs. "anyone in the general public" is not a good match for "Previous A's" vs. "next A"

The correct answer is D.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a common reasoning flaw: "Because it was true in the past, it will be true in the future." "Because all previous examples have been X, the next example will also be X." However, this author correctly moderates the strength of her conclusion by saying, "it's UNLIKELY that the next example will be different from the sameness of all previous examples".

#officialexplanation

[pinkdatura]

of many B, none did C, so it's unlikely B will do C.
past and future flaw?

A thought well written~=enjoy
B Suppose to be same group of people, many book reviewers~=most people who buy book
C two reviewers~=next sunday's book review
E reviewers~=anyone in general public

Anybody can give me an easier and quicker way of attacking this question?

[cyruswhittaker]

I would consider this more of a flaw that involves generalizing from a group. Even though there is a temporal relationship being used here, the argument isn't saying something like this: "In the past couple years, all the pilots during each year found it difficult to operate. Thus all the pilots next year will find it difficult to operate." In this case, it is the temporal relationship itself that is being used as justification.

Here's the argument: Since many test pilots have found it difficult to operate, then some other test pilot will find it difficult to operate.

But maybe 10 pilots found it difficult to operate. Does that mean that we can say that some other pilot will find it difficult?

D has the same flaw. Because many reviewers didn't enjoy it, some other reviewer won't like it.

In your abstract form of the argument, I don't think it's correct to say the second part: "so it's unlikely B will do C." The reason is that the B has a characteristic of the group being discussed (test pilot), but B isn't ONE of the members of the group that tested the plane.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

One thing you might notice as well is that the question doesn't ask us to parallel the flawed reasoning, but rather to parallel the reasoning. The reasoning we want to duplicate in the answer choice is that because all of the members of a group so far possess a certain characteristic, the next member of the group will likely also possess that characteristic.

I can honestly see both the temporal issue brought up by pinkdatura and the generalizing issue brought up by cyruswhittaker.

For the answer choices I actually really like the way pinkdatura went through them one by one and found places that don't match. Really the characters involved must be members of the same group. This eliminates all of the incorrect answers, leaving (D) as the correct answer.

Great work you two!

[aradunakhor]

Could someone expand on why C is wrong? What exactly is the distinction between 'two reviewers' and the 'review of the book in next Sunday's newspaper'? The review of the book is going to be written by a reviewer, so I thought they belonged to the same group. The only weakness I could see was in number, 2 being much less than any reasonable definition of 'many'.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument in the stimulus is flawed. It commits an error of reasoning in that it infers that what's been true for every member of a group in the past will continue to be true for the next member of the group. It's a temporal reasoning error. What's true of the past is not always (or not even likely) true for the future.

Answer choice (D) contains this same error of reasoning. The easiest way to spot that answer choice (D) is correct is that while the other answer choices move from past cases to the next case, only answer choice (D) involves the next member of the same group--simply reviewers.

Incorrect Answers
(A) moves from reviewers to the average reader.
(B) moves from reviewers to most people who want to buy the book.
(C) moves from reviewers who enjoyed the book to the next reviewer at large.
(E) moves from reviewers to the general public.

Hope that helps!

[aradunakhor]

Ah I completely missed the 'who enjoyed Sharlene Lo's new novel' part, and only read 'two reviewers'. That clarifies things!

[hychu3]

Just to add to why (C) is not parallel to the stimulus, it jumps from 'hoping that Lo would write a sequel' to 'expressing hope that Lo would write a sequel.' Hoping and expressing are not exactly the same.

[george.kobakhidze61]

So the answer choice C is a bit tricky. In general, you should not skip the C just because if says "Neither of two Reviewers..."

Remember, in the question stem it says "of many test pilots who have flown the new plane, non have found it difficult to operate." Now the key word many in strictly LSAT vocabulary means some, anything from 1 to 100 (as opposed to majority of... which would mean more than half of the sample). Answer choice C is incorrect but for a different reasons.

"Neither of the two reviewers who enjoyed Sharlene Lo’s new novel hoped that Lo would write a sequel." Now the key word is WHO ENJOYED. The next sentence says: its unlikely that review of book in next Sunday's paper will express hope that Lo will write a sequel.

We have no idea if the next reviewer will actually enjoy the novel. If the sentence said: " The next Sunday's Paper's review will undoubtedly enjoy the novel. So, its unlikely that review of book next Sunday's paper, will express hope that Lo will write a sequel." Then this actually could be a correct answer. However, we are missing that bridge and therefore the answer choice is wrong.

I had to go back and think about it for a while to understand why it was wrong. I hope this helps for those who were also thrown off by this question.

[AshleyT786]

Is this a valid argument? Is C also a mismatched conclusion because it doesn't talk about the reviewers but just review?