CR- Parallel reasoning + FLAWED reasoning

Instructors! Can you please help in this CR question

vishalwin wrote:People who are good at playing the game Drackedary
are invariably skilled with their hands. Mary is a very
competent watchmaker. Therefore, Mary would make
a good Drackedary player.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument
above is most similar to that in which one of the
following?

(A) People with long legs make good runners.
Everyone in Daryl’s family has long legs.
Therefore, Daryl would make a good runner.

(B) People who write for a living invariably enjoy
reading. Julie has been a published novelist
for many years. Therefore, Julie enjoys
reading.

(C) All race car drivers have good reflexes. Chris is
a champion table tennis player. Therefore,
Chris would make a good race car driver.

(D) The role of Santa Claus in a shopping mall is
often played by an experienced actor. Erwin
has played Santa Claus in shopping malls for
years. Therefore, Erwin must be an
experienced actor.

(E) Any good skier can learn to ice-skate
eventually. Erica is a world-class skier.
Therefore, Erica could learn to ice-skate in a
day or two.


choose D. This one is really very very tough for me.


Can you please help me?

Also, can we get a combination of 2 types in GMAT like this one contains parallel reasoning and flaw in reasoning

Breakdown the underlying logic of the original argument:

People who are good at playing the game Drackedary are invariably skilled with their hands.


So people good at D [drackedary], have characteristic SH [skilled hands].

Mary is a very competent watchmaker.

Mary is good at task WM [watchmaking] that likely requires characteristic SH.

Therefore, Mary would make a good Drackedary player.


Therefore Mary is good at D.

Even more abstractly

D ----> SH
WM ------> SH -------> D

First, we're assuming that some unrelated activity - WM - requires a certain skill, SH.

Next, we have a case of Mistaken Reversal. (Something you're more likely to encounter on the LSAT than GMAT.) Even if we accept that all who are good at D have SH, it doesn't necessarily mean that all those with SH will be good at D.

We can see this in simple absurd arguments: Every professional basketball player is tall; therefore every tall person is a professional basketball player. Clearly illogical.

So that's what we're looking for. Everyone who is good at [some activity], has [some characteristic.] Someone is good at an unrelated activity that implies he has [some characteristic.] Therefore, that person is good at [some activity]

This is what we see in choice C:

All race car drivers have good reflexes.
Every good at [some activity -- driving] has [some characteristic --good reflexes]

Chris is a champion table tennis player.
Chris is good at an unrelated activity [table tennis] that suggests he has [good reflexes]

Therefore, Chris would make a good race car driver.
Because Chris has [ good reflexes ] he is a good [driver]

(D is incorrect for a couple reasons. First, it is only often the case that Santa is played by an experienced actor. Not always. Second, there's no unrelated activity here. In the original argument, we're drawing conclusions about how good someone is at Drackedary based on the fact that he is a good watchmaker. In C we're drawing conclusions about how someone's driving ability based on the fact that he's good at table tennis.]

Again, this feels more like an LSAT question.