Critical Reasoning

Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade. Yet Mullen's tax records show heavy investment in business during that time and large profits; so Mullen's proposal does not deserve our consideration.
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?
(A) Do not vote for Smith's proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents; Smith is a working parent.
(B) Do not put any credence in Dr. Han's recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr. Han is a heavy smoker.
(C) The previous witness's testimony ought to be ignored; he has been convicted of both forgery and mail fraud.
(D) Board member Timm's proposal to raise the salaries of the company's middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm's daughter is a middle manager at the company's headquarters.
(E) Dr. Wasow's analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has previously only designed factory buildings.

OA to follow

The OA should be B. The author argues that Mullen's proposal should not be considered b/c Mullen is a member of the group that would be detrimented by that proposal (he would have to pay more taxes).

Similarly Choice B's author argues that Dr. Han's proposal should not be considered b/c Dr. Han is a member of the group that would be detrimented by that proposal (his freedom of choice would be limited).

Choice A is tempting but rather than being being harmed by the proposal, Smith would benefit from it.

i dont think the issue is of benefit and loss...

putting a ban on smoking will be beneficial for Han's health {be it a ban on public place only..}

i think A says do not vote for smith's proposal...how ever the argument and choice B both say dont consider the proposal.. there is a slight diff..

Let me know if you think my reasoning is wrong

2010Gmat..
Even I too had the same line of reasoning..But after reading TestLuv explanation I could understand the difference between a Teacher and a Aspirant..

But Yeah we are right too in some " crude" way!!!

I agree.. all my discussions with Testluv have been really fruitful ...

I am always stuck on 2 close choices...

@Testluv --> what is the remedy to get rid of this prob??

2010gmat wrote:I agree.. all my discussions with Testluv have been really fruitful ...

I am always stuck on 2 close choices...

@Testluv --> what is the remedy to get rid of this prob??

yEAH I am also very grateful enough to testluv..

But If u guys can once again discuss tat Comedians with Unhappy CH CR ,it wuld be great !!!

I have posted my query there once again!!

i dont think the issue is of benefit and loss...

putting a ban on smoking will be beneficial for Han's health {be it a ban on public place only..}

i think A says do not vote for smith's proposal...how ever the argument and choice B both say dont consider the proposal.. there is a slight diff..

Let me know if you think my reasoning is wrong

Hi guys,

We don't know if Dr. Han's proposal will be beneficial for his health because he may simply increase his smoking in private places.
(You would have to assume that he woudn't, and in critical reasoning, you can't make external assumptions...the passage is your universe.)

Also, benefit = something someone would apparently want. For example, Smith in choice A would apparently want the proposal b/c he would be paying less money on his childrens' health care.

And, detriment = someone giving up something they would apparently not want to give up. Since Dr. Han is a smoker, he would, apparently, want the freedom to choose whether he can smoke or not.

I agree.. all my discussions with Testluv have been really fruitful ...

I am always stuck on 2 close choices...

@Testluv --> what is the remedy to get rid of this prob??

The remedy is...not to over-use POE.

Let's say you've eliminated choices C, D and E, and you've narrowed it down to choices A and B. Let's say you have a reason for thinking B is right but you are worried about A. You are worried about A not b/c you have a reason for thinking it is right but rather b/c you are having difficulty in figuring out why it is wrong. So you get worried and change your answer from the one you thought may have been correct (B) to the one that you are unable to explain why it is incorrect (A)...

...You have just been played by the test-maker. The test-maker often makes it harder to figure out why that tempting (but wrong) choice is wrong than it is to figure out why the right answer is right.

Remember you don't get rewarded for figuring out why wrong answers are wrong. You get rewarded for announcing the credited response. So instead of eliminating all the choices try to predict the nature of the correct response and match it (ie, the Kaplan method).

the best answer is B, since Mullen (M) has investment record is another way to say that M is rich,the same applies to Han, who is smoker. that's I think the most break through the argument. any suggestion
thanks

imo b

smokers will be harmed by decision..same a mullen will be harmed by his proposal..

oa b

2010gmat wrote:Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade. Yet Mullen's tax records show heavy investment in business during that time and large profits; so Mullen's proposal does not deserve our consideration.
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?
(A) Do not vote for Smith's proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents; Smith is a working parent.
(B) Do not put any credence in Dr. Han's recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr. Han is a heavy smoker.
(C) The previous witness's testimony ought to be ignored; he has been convicted of both forgery and mail fraud.
(D) Board member Timm's proposal to raise the salaries of the company's middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm's daughter is a middle manager at the company's headquarters.
(E) Dr. Wasow's analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has previously only designed factory buildings.

OA to follow

This is a classic reasoning flaw called "Ad Hominum", where the logic/reasoning is not attacked or argued. Instead the person or the person's action/activity/behaviour etc is attacked.
Choice B shows this parallel reasoning.

Thanks Vittal.

One of the things to be parallel in parallel reasoning questions is the method of reasoning.

and if we quickly identify the method of reasoning in stimuli, we can match fastly with answer choices to get the correct one.

As Vittal pointed, one way of method of argumentation is "Ad Hominum" which i was not aware of. I think causal reasoning is one more way of reasoning.

Can anyone point out other ways of resoning?

Actually, it is spelled "ad hominem", and literally translated from the Latin it means "arguing to the man" (rather than to the man's point). Of course, the literal translation is archaic, and should instead be translated as "argument to the person" (rather than to the person's argument).

The definition of parallel reasoning is that the same kind of conclusion follows from the same kind of evidence. An effective way of handling this type of question is to characterize the TYPE and DIRECTION of the conclusion, and to eliminate choices accordingly.

Types and directions of conclusions:
recommendation for or against
prediction that something will or will not happen
assertion of fact versus assertion that something is not a fact
positive versus negative value judgment
etc

This is a staple LSAT question, and I have yet to see an official GMAT question of this type.

My advice would be to ignore these types of problems: either you won't get one or else the chances of your getting one are so slim that you are better off studying question types you know you are going to get (unless somehow, in direct defiance of our biology, time is an unlimited resource for you!)