Q7 - When the famous art collector

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Match the Flaw

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: I can't afford any of her works.
Evidence: Her collection is the most valuable one ever assembled by one person.

Any prephrase?
What's happening, from a reasoning standpoint, is that the author is thinking "Since the whole collection is incredibly expensive, then surely each work within the collection is incredibly expensive." We can describe this flaw as WHOLE to PART.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
A) this goes from part to whole (plus, this is a legitimate inference, not a flaw).

B) this goes from whole to part ... however, this isn't flawed either. Since the council voted UNANIMOUSLY, we CAN correctly infer that each part voted the same way.

C) his goes from whole to part ... and this IS a dubious inference. Just because a paragraph is long, that doesn't mean that each sentence within the paragraph is long.

D) this goes from part to whole ... this IS a bad inference, but it doesn't match the original as well as (C) does, because this has a premise about PART and a conclusion about WHOLE, while the original had a premise about WHOLE and a conclusion about PART.

E) this also goes from part to whole

Takeaway/Pattern: Most Match the Flaw questions pull from the "Dirty Dozen" classic flaws, such as Part vs. Whole, Unproven vs. Untrue, Necessary vs. Sufficient, Correlation vs. Causality.

#officialexplanation

[chiach2]

Im having difficultly understanding this problem, specifically why "C" is correct and "D" wrong.
From my understanding, this seems to be a part to whole flaw in the stimulus. So how come is "C" is a better answer choice than "D"
Your help is appreciated.

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct (basically), but the issue is more nuanced: LSAT wants you to distinguish between Part to Whole and Whole to Part.

If we look at the core we have

Prem ...........................................Conc
Her collection is among ---> I can't afford any of her works
the most valuable collections
ever assembled

What's happening, from a reasoning standpoint, is that the author is thinking "Since the whole collection is incredibly expensive, then surely each work within the collection is incredibly expensive."

We can describe this flaw as WHOLE to PART.

A) this goes from part to whole (plus, this is a legitimate inference, not a flaw).

B) this goes from whole to part ... however, this isn't flawed either. Since the council voted UNANIMOUSLY, we CAN correctly infer that each part voted the same way.

C) this goes from whole to part ... and this IS a dubious inference. Just because a paragraph is long, that doesn't mean that each sentence within the paragraph is long.

D) this goes from part to whole ... this IS a bad inference, but it doesn't match the original as well as (C) does, because this has a premise about PART and a conclusion about WHOLE, while the original had a premise about WHOLE and a conclusion about PART.

(E) this also goes from part to whole

Hope this helps