The report released by the interior ministry states that within the pa

E because both the stimulus and E does not tell the reason why they think program is not successful or Lee could not have won

Before you move on to the answer choices it is extremely important to know what the flaw is. Here we have a math expert that claims its impossible for something to happen. So we can conclude because math whiz said it was impossible any claim that this event occurred is false.

A - This is a flaw that involves time (yesterday vs today).....so it is not the same
B - We're not told if the year is over or not. If the year is over then her claim is legit and no flaw is present
C - No flaw here since the person of interest is a cardio expert and since he's making a claim related to cardio his conclusion is not fallacious.
D - The word "if" eliminates any potential flaws
E - Is our winner since it contains the same flaw I discussed above.

IMO E....two reasons one has been explained by Icandy...second one as per the stimulus third person is telling us about the program, therefore in the given option I think we have to find out somebody specialist in that profession who is telling us what would be the result and that is only in option E....

I was thinking abt option B also, however it is not correct because Gloria herself is telling us that she never got a chance to act in a drama....there might be different reasons behind it....and it doesn't mean that her drama teacher is wrong....

Comments are highly appreciated!!!!

got your point at the sight of your post~neat explanation~

From PowerScore:

"Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument is essentially that since Senator Armand maintains that the program could not be successful, the figures cited in the report are not accurate.

That correctly utilizes the contra positive of "Figures accurate → Program Successful."

All of the figures and the conditional are designed to distract you from the real flaw: the argument is based on the inappropriate appeal to the expertise of Senator Armand. It doesn't seem likely that we should reject 5 years of study just because some "smart" person off the top of her head decides that certain things are impossible. We'd rather see the numbers, and decide for ourselves.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice does not reference an authority-- in fact, even though the father might be the authority in some senses, the father's claim is rejected. What this choice does do is side with the person who claims to have an eyewitness account, which is the opposite of what the stimulus does.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice sides with the child, not the authority, and weighs at least some eyewitness claims more heavily than other claims, so this choice is incorrect. Furthermore, this choice contains a different flaw. A failure to carry out a policy 100% does not prove that the policy doesn't exist, because policies define what people will attempt to do rather than what people are successful at doing, so the conclusion is unjustified.

Answer choice (C): Even though Amos could simply be an extreme freak of nature, this response involves the correct application of expertise. Dr. Treviso has specific, studied expertise that would enable him to make his judgment, and accepting his claim is not at all the same as accepting Senator Armand's, whose claim is not informed.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice involves a Mistaken Reversal of its last premise, "Robert is right → Evelyn did not listen to late news." The stimulus did not involve a formal logic error, so this response is wrong. Furthermore, this response does not involve an inappropriate appeal to authority.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Just because Lomas is an engineering expert does not mean he has the ability to judge which athlete has a chance of winning. It makes no sense to reject an eyewitness account in favor of Lomas' "authority.""

The report released by the interior ministry states that within the past 5 years the national land-reclamation program has created a 19 percent increase in arable land within the country. If these figures are accurate, the program has been a huge success. Senator Cox, a distinguished mathematician and a woman of brilliance, maintains, however, that the reclamation program could not possibly have been successful. Clearly, therefore, the figures cited in the report cannot be accurate.

The argument above exhibits an erroneous pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?

A) Albert's father claims that Albert does not know where the spare car keys are hidden. Yesterday however, Albert reported that he had discovered the spare car keys in the garage toolbox, so his father's claim cannot be true.

B) Gloria's drama teacher claims that her policy is to give each student the opportunity to act in at least one play during the year but, since Gloria, who attended every class, reports that she was not given such an opportunity the teacher's claim cannot be true.

C) Amos claims that he can hold his breath under water for a full hour. Dr. Treviso, a cardiopulmonary specialist, has stated that humans are physiologically incapable of holding their breath for even half that long; so Amos' claim cannot be true.

D) Evelyn reports that she got home before midnight. Robert, who always knows the time, insists that she did not. If Robert is right, Evelyn could not possibly have listened to the late news; since she admits not having listened to the late news, her report cannot be true.

E) Moira, after observing the finish of the 60-kilometer bicycle race, reports that Lee won with Adams a distant third. Lomas, a bicycle engineering expert, insists, however, that Lee could not have won a race in which Adams competed; so Moira's report cannot be true.

These type of question can be solved in two ways(for erroneous reasoning):
1. Odd one out if the claims made in the choices are logically concluded i.e. the reasoning offered makes sense with available input data points in the four choices, leaving the illogical one as our answer.
2. The wrong answers offer a reasoning in patterns not similar to the reasoning offered in the passage.

Of course the latter is relatively difficult with almost 85-95% level(Gmatclub standards) in degree of being difficult.
Have kept reasoning offered in the passage red and in the right answer also red.

Answer E.
_________________

Here is how I approached this problem:

Claim made that if evidence is correct, claim is successful or right
Specialist argues that claim is incorrect
Conclusion says that the evidence is wrong

Argument does not provide any reasoning as to why the specialist is right.How did the author directly jump to conclusion that the evidence is wrong?

Only Answer choice E matches this flaw.