Video Explanation

Text Explanation

Type: Parallel Flaw (“flawed reasoning… most similar”)

Because this is an argument-based question, begin by breaking the argument down:

Evidence:             The local historical society doesn’t want to demolish the old train station.

                                Those people have no commitment to economic well-being.

New development is important for economic health, and protecting old buildings interferes with that.

Conclusion:         We should demolish the old train station.

Like their close cousins, the Parallel Reasoning question, Parallel Flaw questions ask you to find an answer choice that has the same structure as the original argument. But, in addition, in Parallel Flaw questions the answer and the original must also share the same Flaw. The two arguments must be bad in the same way.

Also like Parallel Reasoning questions, Parallel Flaw questions are often used by the test maker to slow you down, making it so that you don’t have time to get to other, shorter questions in the section, so it would be wise to skip it on your first pass through the section and come back when time allows. (In other words, don’t do three-minute questions when you still have one-and two- minute questions left!)

This argument presents a fairly common flaw on the test, the absence of evidence flaw. The people arguing that we should keep the building have some problems with their argument, but that does not mean that the opposite of their conclusion is true. There could still be other arguments, other evidence that proves that the train station shouldn’t be demolished. We should look in the answers for another argument with the same structure. There will be some party saying something, evidence will be presented against their argument, and the answer will conclude that the opposite of whatever they said must be the case.

Correct answer:

(C) Even though it’s about haircuts, this is our answer. You have one party, the beauticians, who say that you should get your hair cut twice a month. Evidence is given against their position, and the argument then concludes that you shouldn’t get your hair cut twice a month.

Incorrect answers:

(A) This is what we sometimes call a same subject trap. Historical preservation and art are naturally similar subjects, but the reasoning in this answer choice is not similar. The answer doesn’t merely attempt to refute the argument of a group; it just admits that there are some people who might not agree with the argument.

(B) This is another same subject trap, as document preservation and historical preservation are fairly similar. But there’s no one here who’s opposing the preservation, so the argument isn’t the same.

(D) Here, the people opposed to the plan are getting what they want, a postponement. The argument isn’t refuting them; it’s siding with them.

(E) There is no party opposing the conclusion in this argument. The evidence is just a chain of events that starts with borrowing a little money and ends up in major debt.