Parallel Reasoning Question from PT 23, section 3, #23

[flashback10]

Guys, I am struggling with this Parallel Reasoning questions from PT 23, section 3,#23:

OA is B.
My choices were B, D, E. then B,D but can't decide between B and D. Please explain your reasoning and why you choose one answer over another. thanks!


23.   Candidate: The government spends $500 million more each year promoting highway safety than it spends combating cigarette smoking. But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from highway safety programs to antismoking programs.
The flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the candidate’s argument?
(A) The government enforces the speed limit on freeways much more closely than on tollways. But many more people die each year in auto accidents on freeways than die in auto accidents on tollways. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on tollways.

(B) A certain professional musician spends several times as many hours practicing guitar as she spends practicing saxophone. But she is hired much more often to play saxophone than to play guitar, so she would increase her number of playing engagements by spending less time practicing guitar and more time practicing saxophone.

(C) Automobiles burn more gas per minute on highways than on residential streets. But they get fewer miles per gallon on residential streets. Therefore, gas would be saved by driving less on residential streets and more on highways.

(D) The local swim team spends many more hours practicing the backstroke than it spends practicing the breaststroke. But the team’s lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets if it spent less time practicing the backstroke and more time practicing the breaststroke.

(E) Banks have a higher profit margin on loans that have a high interest rate than on loans that have a low interest rate. But borrowers are willing to borrow larger sums at low rates than at high rates. Therefore, banks would be more profitable if they gave more loans on low rates and fewer loans at high rates.

[Articfuze]

I thought this was a hard question. But the only difference that I saw between answer choice B and D was in the second sentence.


Stimulus: But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents.

Answer B: But she is hired much more often to play saxophone that to play guitar

Both of these have a reason as to why one of them is better than the other.


Answer choice D just merely states that the the team’s lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, and does not mention why one is better than the other until the conclusion.

If Answer choice D said " But the team wins more often using the breaststroke than using the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets...

This is just my reasoning as how I would differentiate between the right and wrong answer.  I'm sure there are other things wrong with answer D that I am probably not seeing either.

In any case, I hope this helps a little.

[River]

23.   Candidate: The government spends $500 million more each year promoting highway safety than it spends combating cigarette smoking. But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from highway safety programs to antismoking programs.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the candidate’s argument?
(A) The government enforces the speed limit on freeways much more closely than on tollways. But many more people die each year in auto accidents on freeways than die in auto accidents on tollways. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on tollways.
:enforcement--x--shifting funds?

(B) A certain professional musician spends several times as many hours practicing guitar as she spends practicing saxophone. But she is hired much more often to play saxophone than to play guitar, so she would increase her number of playing engagements by spending less time practicing guitar and more time practicing saxophone.
:several time=more time

(C) Automobiles burn more gas per minute on highways than on residential streets. But they get fewer miles per gallon on residential streets. Therefore, gas would be saved by driving less on residential streets and more on highways.
:per minute---x---per gallon

(D) The local swim team spends many more hours practicing the backstroke than it spends practicing the breaststroke. But the team’s lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets if it spent less time practicing the backstroke and more time practicing the breaststroke.
:lap time---x---much bettre---x---less time

(E) Banks have a higher profit margin on loans that have a high interest rate than on loans that have a low interest rate. But borrowers are willing to borrow larger sums at low rates than at high rates. Therefore, banks would be more profitable if they gave more loans on low rates and fewer loans at high rates.
:banks---x---borrowers

Now look at the consistency of stimuls and line of args; if not consistent, it should not be in paralle

[flashback10]

23.   Candidate: The government spends $500 million more each year promoting highway safety than it spends combating cigarette smoking. But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from highway safety programs to antismoking programs.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the candidate’s argument?
(A) The government enforces the speed limit on freeways much more closely than on tollways. But many more people die each year in auto accidents on freeways than die in auto accidents on tollways. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on tollways.
:enforcement--x--shifting funds?

(B) A certain professional musician spends several times as many hours practicing guitar as she spends practicing saxophone. But she is hired much more often to play saxophone than to play guitar, so she would increase her number of playing engagements by spending less time practicing guitar and more time practicing saxophone.
:several time=more time

(C) Automobiles burn more gas per minute on highways than on residential streets. But they get fewer miles per gallon on residential streets. Therefore, gas would be saved by driving less on residential streets and more on highways.
:per minute---x---per gallon

(D) The local swim team spends many more hours practicing the backstroke than it spends practicing the breaststroke. But the team’s lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets if it spent less time practicing the backstroke and more time practicing the breaststroke.
:lap time---x---much bettre---x---less time

(E) Banks have a higher profit margin on loans that have a high interest rate than on loans that have a low interest rate. But borrowers are willing to borrow larger sums at low rates than at high rates. Therefore, banks would be more profitable if they gave more loans on low rates and fewer loans at high rates.
:banks---x---borrowers

Now look at the consistency of stimuls and line of args; if not consistent, it should not be in paralle

I don't see the difference in consistency of stimulus and line of args btw. B and D

[flashback10]

I thought this was a hard question. But the only difference that I saw between answer choice B and D was in the second sentence.


Stimulus: But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents.

Answer B: But she is hired much more often to play saxophone that to play guitar

Both of these have a reason as to why one of them is better than the other.


Answer choice D just merely states that the the team’s lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, and does not mention why one is better than the other until the conclusion.

If Answer choice D said " But the team wins more often using the breaststroke than using the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets...

This is just my reasoning as how I would differentiate between the right and wrong answer.  I'm sure there are other things wrong with answer D that I am probably not seeing either.


In any case, I hope this helps a little.

the order of why one is better than the other is irrelevant. what matters is that evidence is there.
to me, B and D look the same:

B:
G>S
G<S
=> G<S

D:
BA>BR
BA<BR
=>BA<BR

the direction action movement from one to another (including the conclusion) is also the same.

 

[Articfuze]

the order of why one is better than the other is irrelevant. what matters is that evidence is there.
to me, B and D look the same:

B:
G>S
G<S
=> G<S

D:
BA>BR
BA<BR
=>BA<BR

the direction action movement from one to another (including the conclusion) is also the same.

 

The structure of the argument between answer B and D are different. 

Stimulus - many more people die...would save lives by shifting

In your analysis of answer B, G<S, you are missing the key component. why G<S? Because she is hired much more often to do that.  Now this in turn is used to support the conclusion, G<S.

Structure - Hired more much often...she would increase the number of her playing engagements

In comparing this to answer D, your analysis only reveals that BA<BR in the second sentence.  There is no explanation why BA<BR.  But in the conclusion, the reason mysteriously pops up which is winning.

Structure - lap times are better...team would win more swim meets.

Better lap times does not equate to more team wins.

The direction and movement from one to another is similar, but the key components making up the structure leading to the conclusion is different.

[flashback10]

the order of why one is better than the other is irrelevant. what matters is that evidence is there.
to me, B and D look the same:

B:
G>S
G<S
=> G<S

D:
BA>BR
BA<BR
=>BA<BR

the direction action movement from one to another (including the conclusion) is also the same.

 

The structure of the argument between answer B and D are different. 

Stimulus - many more people die...would save lives by shifting

In your analysis of answer B, G<S, you are missing the key component. why G<S? Because she is hired much more often to do that.  Now this in turn is used to support the conclusion, G<S.

Structure - Hired more much often...she would increase the number of her playing engagements

In comparing this to answer D, your analysis only reveals that BA<BR in the second sentence.  There is no explanation why BA<BR.  But in the conclusion, the reason mysteriously pops up which is winning.

Structure - lap times are better...team would win more swim meets.

Better lap times does not equate to more team wins.

The direction and movement from one to another is similar, but the key components making up the structure leading to the conclusion is different.

I think in the mind of the author better lap times = more team wins.

otherwise, if
Better lap times does not equate to more team wins

then how can you equate that
government would save lives by shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on tollways
is the assumption that the author is making. Saving lives does not have to happen if the government will shift funds. The trend could get reversed and more people would die in highway accidents than from smoking related diseases. Smoking related diseases could have other triggers, etc...

[Articfuze]

I think in the mind of the author better lap times = more team wins.

otherwise, if
Better lap times does not equate to more team wins

then how can you equate that
government would save lives by shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on tollways
is the assumption that the author is making. Saving lives does not have to happen if the government will shift funds. The trend could get reversed and more people would die in highway accidents than from smoking related diseases. Smoking related diseases could have other triggers, etc...

You are correct that the author assumes better lap times to more team wins, but it is not explicitly mentioned in answer choice D like it is in the stimulus or answer B.  The author assumes it, but there is no stated link between those two. That's why I said better lap times does not equate to more team wins.

To look at the structure from a simplified view:

Stimulus: many more people die...would save lives (less people die)

The flaw is that just because many more people die from smoking related diseases, the government assumes it can save lives by shifting highway safety programs to anti smoking programs.

Answer B: she is hired much more often...she would increase her number of playing engagements. (being hired more)

Flaw: It assumes that just because she is hired more to play saxophone over the guitar, she can increase her playing engagements (being hired more) by practicing the saxophone more than the guitar.

Answer D: Team's lap time for breaststrokes are much better...team would win more swim meets if it spent less time...()

There is no connection between team's lap time and winning in the sentence.


Both in the stimulus and the correct answer there is something in common between the second and third sentence which helps derive the conclusion.

I hope this helps.

[Vaio]

Good question.

The flawed reasoning to be paralleled here is the idea that a goal can be achieved by putting less resources into something and MORE resources into something that would help meet the goal.

Fact1: Govt spends $500mill more on HS than CS.
Fact2: CS claims more lives than HS
Conc: Govt would save lives [less claimed lives] by spending less on HS and more on CS.
Goal: Claim less lives  - Does our conc. meet this goal with support of facts? Yes.


(B) Fact1: Musician spends more hours on G than S.
    Fact2: Gets more jobs for S than G
    Conc:  Get more jobs by spending less hours on G and more on S 
    Goal:  Get more jobs - Does our conc. meet this goal with support of facts? Yes.
   
(D) Fact1: Swim team spends more hours on backstroke than breaststroke
    Fact2: Breaststroke times are better than backstroke times
    Conc:  Win more meets by spending less time on backstroke & more time on breaststroke.
    Goal:  Win more meets - Does our conc. meet this goal with support of facts? No.

(D) clearly misses the point in connecting Conc. with with Fact2. Conc deals with winning races, Fact2 deals with better times. There is no stated fact that better times lead to more winned races. In Stimulus and (B) the conclusion, while flawed, is based off stated facts..

(D) would be correct if Fact2 stated that the team wins more races using the breaststroke than the backstroke.. it doesnt. It simply states that Breaststroke times are better than backstroke then jumps to the conclusion that they should spend more time focusing on breasttroke in order to win races. Never talks about winning races before in discussion of facts.