Q26 - The vast majority of a person's

[wayne_palmer10]

I know that this is a parallel reasoning question, but I can't seem to figure out by (D) is right. Any help would be great. Thanks.

[noah]

I see you've posted a bunch of questions about parallel questions, so let me walk you through the process and maybe you can figure some of these out on your own, explain them and then we'll look over your thinking.

If you boil down the stimulus (given argument) of this question, what would you say it's basic structure is? I'll start:

Most X doesn't result in Y.


P.S. I think you may be incorrectly concerned with the order of the elements of a parallel reasoning question. You should focus on whether it has all the requisite parts without any significant changes in modifiers (i.e. changing from any to some).

[yuckyuks]

Hi there, could we take a more comprehensive look at this question? So far, this is how I've broken down the argument:

many x -/-> y
therefore ~z b/c z relies on the false premises that x-->y

Is this correct?

Would someone be able to go through each answer choice with me, and tell me how they do/don't fit that structure?

Thank you so much in advance!

[mcrittell]

Would it be agreeable to diagram the stim as such"

dreams most ~ resemblance to real events
___________________
resemblance to real events ---> ~ ESP

assumption dreams most ~ ESP

[d.andrew.chen]

Let me try to take a stab at this one, as working it out on paper may help my understanding, too. I got this wrong when preptesting, for the record, but know why I got it wrong.

First of all, one reason why this is tricky is that the order of premises/conclusion in the stimulus is different from the order in some of the answer choices...but that doesn't necessarily make them WRONG. It's the actual way the argument flows from premise to argument you are trying to parallel, not the order of presentation.

Argument (paraphrased to match answers closer)
Premise: Most of a person's dreams have no resemblance to real events.
Counter-Premise: Some have had dreams that match up w/ future events
Conclusion: Unreasonable to believe that people have ESP (can "predict" future events w dreams)

Keep a close eye on the quantities mentioned.
Basically, there is a premise stating something about MOST things. Even though SOME people seem to exhibit this ESP, this isn't enough to override the evidence of MOST (it implies coincidence, but there's no actual reason or applicability to assume it), leading to the conclusion that it's unreasonable to believe people can ESP (predict future w/ dreams).

Note that the argument preempts an attack from critics...what if the last clause wasn't in the stimulus? Someone could reply...well I know Tommy and Timmy, who have had dreams that matched up w future events of their lives. This pre-empts that attack.

Answer choices:

A) The necessary clause created by the last sentence is unlike the stimulus.

B) "Many people who undergo surgery..." is not the logical equivalent of "most"/"vast majority." Second clause is fine.

C) "Several"...doesn't match up with "vast majority." Even if it is logically equivalent, introducing these factors is different from the argument, which compares a "vast majority" with a few cases. C) tries to compare apples to oranges.

D) Correct answer:
"Most people who take aspirin" = "Vast Majority"
Conclusions match up.
"Number of people..." ="Some have had several vivid dreams"

Argument flows parallel. It states a fact about most people who take aspirin. Then presents counter-info about only some people, but overrides it for the conclusion, based on the statement about "most."

E) Significant number and vast majority are questionably equivalent. Even if equivalent, the conclusion denies a connection rather than supporting one. Question for experts: Does the scope shift from children to people present an issue here? I would imagine it does not, as children are included in people..


Sorry, I'm very verbose. I hope this helps out, though.

[wizzard880]

Hey Manhattan could you diagram the argument and the answer choices out? I've read over all the post on this question but am still having some trouble and would lke to see how the diagramming works.

[ohthatpatrick]

I would not diagram this argument. Diagramming implies that there was conditional logic involved, but there wasn't (we could force ourselves to represent the ideas conditionally, but why make them into something they're not?)

The argument is just saying:
Say I'm flipping a coin 100 times. Sometimes you accurately predict whether it'll be heads or tails. Does that prove you have a power to predict the side? No, because the vast majority of the time your prediction is wrong.

If you want to get more abstract, just look for something like
CONC: the fact that some X's are Y's does not prove a connection.
why?
PREM: the vast majority of X's are NOT Y's.

(A) we need the 2nd sentence to say "most new drugs that successfully treat a few patients do NOT cure the disease they're targeting".

(B) We need the 1st sentence to say "for most people, undergoing surgery for ulcers is NOT effective".

(C) We need the last idea to be "most of the time, not drinking herbal tea does NOT lead to a remission".

(E) We need the 2nd idea to be "it's unreasonable to assume a connection between power lines and cancer" and the 3rd to be "because most people living near power lines don't develop cancer".

Hope this helps.

[cyt5015]

I think answer D is not perfect match. Does the sentence "a number of people who die prematurely take aspirin" need to be modified to "a number of people who take aspirin die prematurely"? That is reason why I felt a bit hesitate to choose D after eliminating other wrong answers. Can any geek clarify that please? Thank you.

[Mab6q]

Wow, I choose D on my first go but then switched it to A on my review. Tricky question indeed.

Here's how I saw A and D in comparison to the argument.

Basic logical structure.

Some X lead to Y

Most X don't lead to Y.

So it is unreasonable to conclude based on some Xs leading to Y that X causes Y.

Now, I don't think this argument is flawed because its conclusion is very limited, only saying that it is unreasonable.

Looking at A and D, I'm not sure I'm seeing the issue with A that most of you guys are seeing.

Unreasonable to believe that new drug cures heart disease when it is tested successfully a few times.

WHY: vast majority of new drugs must be tested on large numbers of patients before we can consider them effective.

Now, this is not a perfect match, but I think the main thing the original stimulus was getting at was: we cant conclude something simply because of this premise, because this premise is weak in nature (some vs. the majority)..

Now, when we juxtapose that with D, we see that although D may be similar to the stimulus in some ways that A wasn't, it differs in more ways. For one, I believe D is inherently flawed. The author makes shifts from not dying prematurely to not being dangerous. In addition, D misses the point about the conclusion not being reasonable based on the premise, instead making a blanket statement about aspirin not being dangerous.

I can see how an argument can be made for A being incorrect, but I can't seem to justify D.

Thanks for any help.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great questions.

First, to the poster two posts ago, it doesn't matter whether the first sentence of (D) reads as is or as you suggested.

Since the first sentence is just a SOME statement, it's identical in meaning either way.

"A number of people who play football own trampolines" is the same thing as "a number of people who own trampolines play football".

In terms of the (A) vs. (D) debate, you raise some good points.

- (D) does NOT have the sort of language the original did regarding "it's dumb to conclude X solely on the basis of Y". But, like always in LR and RC, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In other words, sometimes the correct answer isn't written perfectly, but it's still the correct answer.

- The fact that (D) had, to you, a more flawed conclusion by generalizing to "aspirin is dangerous" actually WAS mirrored in the original. ESP (extrasensory perception) is broader than simply having a dream that predicts the future. There are other forms of ESP besides clairvoyant dreams (and other ways in which taking aspirin may be dangerous besides premature death). (A) is actually a mismatch in this regard, because the premise contains the more generic term "effective" while the conclusion contains the more specific version "cures heart disease".

- I think if you stay with the template you created for this argument, you'll see why (A) misses the mark.

you said:
Some X lead to Y

Most X don't lead to Y.

So it is unreasonable to conclude based on some Xs leading to Y that X causes Y.

How would we initially match up "some X lead to Y" with (A)?

Some new drugs lead to curing heart disease?
Most new drugs don't lead to curing heart disease?

We don't have that second idea.

How about ...
MOST new drugs require testing on large numbers of patients.
SOME new drugs don't require testing on large numbers of patients?

No, it never says that.

Contrast this with (D), in which there is a clear enumeration of
Some X are Y
yet
Most X are ~Y

Some people who take aspirin die prematurely
yet
Most people who take aspirin don't die prematurely

(A) is really making an argument that cautions us against rushing to the conclusion that this new drug is effective. The author isn't disputing that the new drug is effective; he's just arguing that it would probably be premature to judge so after only a few test patients.

Meanwhile, the original argument and (D) are specifically arguing AGAINST the idea that we have ESP based on some predictive dreams or that aspirin is dangerous just because some people die prematurely.

Hope this helps.