LR perception.

[bummerz]

Perception cannot be a relationship between a conscious being and a material object that causes that being to have beliefs about that object.  For there are many imperceptible material objects about which we have believes.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its flawed reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

(A) Art cannot be an artifact created by someone with the express purpose of causing an aesthetic reaction in its audience.  For we often have aesthetic reactions to artifacts that are not art.
(B) Liberty cannot be the obligation of other people not to prevent one from doing as one wishes.  For no matter what one tries to do some people will try to prevent it.
(C) Preparation cannot be action directed toward fulfilling needs and solving problems before they arise.  For there are problems so severe that no amount of preparation will help.
(D) Happiness cannot be the state of mind in which pleasure both qualitatively and quantitatively predominates over pain.  For we simply cannot compare pain and pleasure qualitatively.
(E) Physics cannot be the science that investigates the ultimate principles of nature.  For human beings are finite, and the ultimate principles cannot be understood by finite beings.

[bummerz]

i cant believe it .. no one on this one? this was pretty tough for me.

[theillest05]

I'd say it's D. I'm not very good at analogy / parallel reasoning but this one looks the most like the stimulus. Is it D?

[robbief]

A?

[bummerz]

the answer is A.  how did you arrive at the answer?

[robbief]

I think my answer was more intuitive than an act of figuring out the actual logic.

In the stimulus he explains what perception can't be, and his reasoing is that there imperceivable things that we have beliefs.

My logic was, that's great, just because we have beliefs about imperceptable things, that says nothing about things we DO perceive.

In other words, it tries to define something by what it's not.  "A" does the exact same thing.  "Art is not..., because we know such and such about what art isn't"

Right, so I know my explanation was worthless.  I guess, in truth, A just seemed to mimic the stimulus exactly.  Take it for what you will.

[bummerz]

What tripped me up was "what flaw?" are they talking about?

[robbief]

Well his reasoning about what perception isn't is wrong (I can't explain).  That "flaw" is a very big help.  Bc now you know, look at the answer choices and if any of them have correct logic, they're out.  This is the difference btw parallel reasoning and matching the flaw or whatever.  If it didn't write "flaw" than you would assume you are looking for an answer with correct logic.  I think you can usually rule two or three out just by knowing if it's flawed or not. 

[bummerz]

I dont think they would be that nice tho.  I think mentioning the "flaw" parallel question does sometimes help but I dont think it's wise to assume that they'll mention the "flaw" every time in a parallel question.  IE .. I think (not that I recall exactly) that there are some cases where they do not mention "flaw" but still the stimulus and parallel answer did contain a flaw.  I hope I'm wrong.  Can someone identify the flaw(s) in stimulus  / answer choices?

[robbief]

No, I'm ALMOST positive that in a p. reasoning, if they don't mention flaw, it's because it's not flawed.  If and only if they say "what flaw parellels" or whatever, are we to find a flaw.