Parallel Flaw | LSAT Logical Reasoning

[@DanielUmstead]

I hope folks understand that you can loop these videos, there is so much to go over but continuous plays over and over will get that high score, thanks so much for these videos!

[@nezsa628]

Basically.... You look for the recipe and match that with the correct answer choice that ALSO has the identical recipe... HENCE PARALLEL =) I am mind blown.. Thank you THANK YOU

[@moniquesummers7850]

Thank you for the break down of each question. I appreciate your stats at the end and a summary. Very well organized and easy to follow! Just what I needed.

[@ilybacon]

Thank you for these videos!!! They really help me understand what I am working with.

[@yugalbhatt5570]

Amazing..

[@sizz630]

I'd like to ask one more question. E is unclear to me as well. I understood the structure of 'If Competitor's Fares Down, then Global's Fares or Passengers Down'. But I was not able to understand why the entire reasoning structure is valid. In my opinion, just because Global carried more passengers last year than it did the year before, that doesn't necessarily mean they MUST HAVE REDUCED its fares last year. Because there is a chance that they might have had another way to carry more passengers. Matt said the last part of E, "to match reductions in its competitors' fares", is the key. To me, the part sounds like just an imagination: the nuance of "they might have~" tho.

[@LSATLab]

I agree with you that we don't have to see (E) as a valid argument. Were that last sentence really conveying the idea that there definitely WAS a fare reduction from at least one competitor, then the logic would be valid. But I don't think one has to read the last sentence that way. There's nothing in that sentence that definitely establishes that the competitors in fact lowered fares. It's totally possible to hear that as simply part of the author's hypothesis, "they must have reduced their fares in response to competitors' lower fares". As an analogy, "If a friend gets into Harvard, you'll either be jealous of them or buy them a congratulatory gift. Since Patrick hasn't bought a congratulatory gift for his friend Matt, he must be jealous that Matt got into Harvard." I certainly wouldn't call that a valid argument and I don't think I have to accept that "Matt got into Harvard" is a FACT that got tucked in.

[@sizz630]

​@@LSATLab I appreciate your detailed explanation! The example you mentioned(Harvard story) perfectly makes sense to me :)

[@sizz630]

I really appreciate all lessons of Lsat Lab. They are very helpful. In Paleomycologists' story, I don't understand the reason why the reasoning structure of D is 'If 1+Year, then Can Participate'. The way I see it, '1+Year' is a requirement for the retirement plan because all employees who have been with the company a year or more can participate in it. Could you please explain what kind of misunderstanding I have?

[@LSATLab]

I think it's natural for us to hear it as a requirement, because that accords with our common sense about the world. But there isn't anything in that sentence that signifies the idea of requirement. It doesn't say, "in order to participate in the RP you need to be there at least one year". It says, "After they've been there a year or more, all employees can participate in the RP". This sounds like a sufficient condition. That sentence doesn't allow room for other possible requirements. It sounds like as long as you've been there a year, you're good to go. Meanwhile, had we said "to participate in the RP, you need to be there at least one year", that leaves room for other possible requirements, such as "you also need to be in good standing with your regional office". The actual says, "after a year, ALL can participate", so it's saying that one year's tenure is a guarantee of the right to participate.

[@sizz630]

​@@LSATLab Wow thank you for your comment! I fully understood what you mean :)

[@riyakapoor3218]

Thankyouuu

[@maggiebrown9507]

THANK YOU

[@dontellahfonne]

it loved

[@NathanS10]

Can someone please explain again how D is too strong - I narrowed my answers to A and D but D seemed more clear?

[@cecehudson9032]

Gavin 'can' participate, which implies that there is another option. In stimulus, it is 'invariable' that they will be acquainted- so there is no other option. The conclusion is too strong in D, we cannot conclude he MUST be in the plan

[@elarael6045]

I feel like they did a really poor job of explaining this one. How is D actually wrong? The reasoning seems exactly the same to me. A and D both seem right to me. How is D's conclusion "too strong"? It doesn't seem any stronger than the conclusion they reached in the stimulus ("must"). Someone help, please.

[@LSATLab]

Hey-hey. The flaw with the original argument was a reversal of a conditional. They gave us a rule: X --> Y Then they said Professor M is Y. Thus, Professor M is X. The illegal move there is that we can't say that "if I know the outcome applies to you, then I also know the trigger applies to you". (A) made that illegal backwards move. They gave us: "initial flight is delayed --> connecting flight is delayed" Then they said Frieda's CONNECTING flight is delayed. Again, they're arguing that "since the outcome of this rule applies to Frieda, the trigger must also apply". In (D), there's no illegal backwards move. They gave us: "emp for 1+ year --> can participate in retirement plan" Then they said that Gavin has been an emp for 1+ year. This is totally valid logic so far. They're saying, "since the trigger of this rule applies to Gavin ...", and then they should be concluding "this outcome must also apply to Gavin". The valid conclusion would be "Gavin CAN participate in the retirement plan". The actual conclusion drawn was that "Gavin DOES participate in the retirement plan". That's what Matt meant when he said the only thing wrong with this is that it's too strong. He means, "the only thing wrong with the internal logic of choice (D) is that the conclusion is phrased too strongly. It's otherwise a perfectly valid argument." But that's not the only reason (D) is wrong as an answer choice. It's wrong because it doesn't match the original flaw, and that's because the flaw committed by the original argument and by (A) was "assuming that because the outcome of a rule applies to someone, the trigger must also apply to them". Let me know if any of that was confusing.

[@KKSportsKKS]

@@Therealdoctorj That's not true. Just because he CAN use their retirement plan does not mean that he does. Therefore it is an invalid argument