Q16 - The owners of Uptown Apartments

[acechaowang]

Could anyone help eliminate B and C from this answer? By the way, is it true to say that for parallel reasoning questions, we need to match the conclusion but for parallel flaw, matching up the conclusion is not important? Thanks a lot!

[tommywallach]

Hey There Ace,

Let me start with your second question. You can match up the style of the conclusion ("So everyone is friendly" will NEVER match up with "So a few people are in the army") in both matching types, but you're right that matching the conclusion is far more useful in match the reasoning questions. In Match the Flaw questions, you have more to go on (the nature of the flaw), so you usually don't need to match up premises/conclusion.

Now, for this question, let's start by getting a feel for the argument:

Conclusion: Owners should make improvements
Counter-premise: Cost of Improvements > Increased Rent
Premise: Improvements also increase other values

In short, we have a conclusion, based on a positive and negative result from a given act (and the implication that the positive outweighs the negative)

A) Conclusion: John should have surgery
Counter-premise: Surgery is painful
Premise: Surgery would allow him to exercise

Good match! Let's keep it for now! Notice how the implication again is that the positive (more exercise) outweighs the negative (pain).

B) Conclusion: Lake town made wrong decision renting boats
Counter-premise: season is short
Premise: boats can be used for other purposes during fishing season

A few problems here. First, the conclusion relates to the wrongness or rightness of the decision, instead of being a simple recommendation (this is how the matching of the conclusion discussed above can be useful). A bigger problem is actually that this answer choice doesn't make sense. The question isn't about the usage of the boats during the fishing season, but during the NON-fishing season!

C) Conclusion: Max should have the mechanic check
Counterpremise: Costs $175 and may not be necessary
Premise: Engine ruined if there is a crack

Ooooo! Looks good at first glance, but there's a problem. In our original prompt, we have two things that come from the improvements, a good one and a bad one, and the bad outweighs the good. This is, instead, a hypothetical situation which will EITHER be good (engine fixed) or bad (unnecessary payment). It's not that the two things BOTH happen. That doesn't match!

D) Conclusion: Dental problems led Leona to better health

Let's already cut this. The conclusion is not at all a recommendation.

E) Conclusion: It's in the interest of the company to market fruit
Counter-Premise: ???
Premise: Research says people like it.

Big problem! No counter-premise.

So the answer is A. Let me know if that makes sense!

-t

[acechaowang]

Hi Tommy! Thank you so much! Your explanation strengthens my view and makes a lot of sense!

[joseph.m.kirby]

I saw the reasoning in this question as follows:

The owners don't want to do something (they don't want to make improvements) because of a negative consequence (costs > ROI). However, the arguer puts forward a positive externality that may or may not outweigh the negative consequence. Because of the positive externality, the arguer says the owners should do the opposite of something (they should make improvements).

(A)

John doesn't want to do something (he doesn't want to have surgery) because of a negative consequence (more pain). However, the arguer puts forward a positive externality that may or may not outweigh the negative consequence (being able to exercise regularly again). Because of the positive externality, the arguer says John should do the opposite of what he wants (he should have surgery).


(B) & (D) reason differently as they don't conclude with telling someone/an entity that they "should" or ought to do something.

(C) Max's mechanic wants to do something (remove the engine and check it). This activity could have a negative consequence ($175 for nothing). However, this activity could prevent a more negative consequence (ruined engine). So Max should let the mechanic do the activity. The reasoning here is not the same as (A) and the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that the owners want to do something, but they should do the opposite. (A) tells us that John wants to do something, but he should do the opposite. (C) misses the mark: Max's mechanic wants to do something, and Max should let him do it.

(E) Bulk Fruit Company is deciding on something that it is enthusiastic about. Research supports what they want to do. Therefore, it is in their long-term interest to do so.... The conclusion is similar as it's in their long-term interest, which might make it inferable that they should do it. However, we don't have the same reasoning and the conclusion is slightly different. Let's stick with (A).

[aradunakhor]

I'm a bit confused: given a decision between two alternatives X and Y. If I choose X, and someone tells me I made the wrong decision, isn't that equivalent to a very strong recommendation that I choose Y?

It seems like author of choice B is recommending that Laketown Fishing Company buy the boats (it isn't explicitly stated, but it seems very reasonable to infer that Laketown Fishing Company is renting boats, not buying). The choice of whether to rent or to buy (for all times) seemed like the question at hand, which is why I was tempted by B.

[akshay.nelakurti]

I analyzed the reasoning a bit differently:

The owners of Uptown Apts. want to make money, and they believe that they should not go through with renovations as the costs would not be covered by increased rents. But in fact they should go through with renovations, because they will be able to cover costs from a previously overlooked factor.

So, objective= Make money
Action A (not renovating)= Will not do so
Action B (renovating)= Will do so
Action B achieves the objective and so action B must be done.

To me this was closest to (C):
Objective= save more money
Action A (do not check)= save only $175
Action B (check engine)= potentially save much more money
Action B can save more money so action B should be done.

I believed that (A) was wrong because:
Objective= avoid pain
Action A (no surgery)= pain does not increase
Action B (surgery)= John can exercise
Here the consequence of action B is not related to John's overall objective.

Could someone please help me understand why this interpretation is not right?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're making a good case for (C).

One tiny suggestion: you probably don't need to think of two different variables for doing / not doing the same action. You could get away with "A and ~A".

Here's my confusion with how you're thinking (C) matches the original (bolded)
----------
So, objective= Make money
Action A (not renovating)= Will not do so
Action B (renovating)= Will do so
Action B achieves the objective and so action B must be done.

To me this was closest to (C):
Objective= save more money
Action A (do not check)= save only $175
Action B (check engine)= potentially save much more money
Action B can save more money so action B should be done.
-----------

I think what you're missing from this argument's salient features are the pros/cons of each situation.

STIMULUS
Should we renovate the apartment?
Pros: can charge higher rent .... Cons: the cost of renovation would outweigh the extra rent

BUT WAIT ... there's another pro --
Pro: can charge higher rents on surrounding property!

(A)
Should we get the surgery?
Pros: it would remove the minimal knee pain .... Cons: the pain of surgery outweighs the minimal knee pain

BUT WAIT ... there's another pro --
Pro: it would allow us to exercise regularly again!

(C)
Should we remove the engine to check on the cylinder?
Pros: might avoid the engine being ruined later .... Cons: have to pay $175, even if the cylinder is fine.

BUT WAIT ... there's another pro?
No, there's not. That's the problem.

-------------------

I think you really made it impossible to like (A) by being too affixed to the original, in terms of the fact that the "extra positive" was still related to the "original goal" of making money.

In the case of (A), the "extra positive" isn't related to the original goal.

But in the case of (C), where are you even getting that Max's original goal is to save money?

Matching questions can be rough because it's hard to judge which features are the salient ones that need to be replicated and which features are inessential.

I would have been looking for something that felt like
"It's not worth doing A for its own sake, but if you pull in this overlooked third factor, it IS worth doing."

With (C), I never get a "it's not worth doing A for its own sake". We're weighing the cost of $175 vs. the fear that something far worse would afflict our engine later. It looks like the author makes her decision based purely on those internal factors, not by appealing to some third factor we've overlooked. If (C) had tacked on some previously unconsidered benefit, like, "But if we remove the engine to check the cylinders, we can also do a cheap engine cleaning that will likely extend the life of the engine parts by a couple years." then it would be closer to the original.

[akshay.nelakurti]

Yeah I see my mistake now. I considered the third external factor as an internal factor. Thanks for clarifying

[JeffW669]

I'm not really satisfied yet with any of the explanations for why B is wrong. Can someone give it another shot?

Here's what I saw as the structure of the stimulus:
Owners have two choices: A (improve) or B (not improve). They want to choose B, because X (cheaper to not improve). However, consider factor Y (increased value and rent for their other properties). Thus, they should choose A.
In super-shorthand: A or B. "B because X" is wrong, because Y. Thus, A.

A) John has two choices: A (surgery) or B (no surgery). He wants to choose B, because X (no pain of healing). However, consider factor Y (exercise). Thus, he should choose A.
B) Laketown has two choices: A (buy) or B (rent). They choose B, because X (fishing season). However, consider factor Y (other uses). Thus, they should choose A.

Is the problem really just that "factor Y" in answer choice B is not reasonable, as described by tommywallach? That seems weird to me—I've never encountered a LR question before that used a "bad reason" in a reasoning structure environment. Like, if you had two choices that were both "A because B"—let's say one said "You should wear yellow because you like giraffes" and the other said "You should wear yellow because you look good in it"—I have always just assumed the two reasons are equally valid. After all, we're only really thinking about reasoning structure in these questions, right?

[LolaC289]

My two cents for this question. (less than one month to the official June test!!!! wish me luck )

This is not a super easy parallel reasoning question to me, because even the correct answer requires a small leap of extra assumption. I eliminated C,D,E pretty fast and chose B for the first time. As I turned around I chose A, and successfully convinced myself A is a better answer choice than B.

Analysis on the original argument:
Decision-maker: Leaning toward not to do X. Because the improvement does not cover the the cost to do X.
Recommender(is this a word?idk): Do X. Because there is other benefit.

Answer choice A and B seem both fit to the analysis on first peak.

(A)
John: Leaning toward not to have surgery. Because the pain of going through a surgery exceeds the pain caused by the injury itself. (And here it requires a small, extra assumption: a surgery's pain is bigger than the injury pain.)
Recommender: Do the surgery. Because there is other benefit(of being able to exercise again).

Thought: All fit except for the small extra assumption. But it is pretty natural and reasonable, keep it.

(B)
Laketown Company: Leaning toward not to buy boat. Because its fishing season lasts only six month. (But where is the cost exceeds the benefit part? Do we know because the fishing season is short, the cost will exceed the benefit for sure? Seems like a pretty big gap here, in order to make this work!)
Recommender: Buy the boat(not to buy is the wrong decision). Because there is other benefit(to use for other purposes).

So the biggest problem with B is on the first part, which actually offers us no information on comparison between the cost and benefit. While A also requires extra assumption to conform to the form, it is a natural step to take.

Other answer choices:
(C) talks about do certain action even if the risk may not take place. Because the potential risk, if happened, will be to hard to take. It has nothing to do with the benefits of the action. (However, I think it's a good argument.)

(D)talks about do certain thing because it can lead to other things, which turns out to improve one's overall benefit. It does not talk about how Leona is leaning toward in the first place, not does it talk about cost of cutting candy consumption.

(E)talks about to do something due to its long-term effect.