The commissioner has announced that Judge Khalid, who was on the seven

7 member panel of Amlec dispute was reasonable and fair.
Judge Khalid belonged to the panel.
So Judge Khalid would be reasonable and fair.

The flaw is that an attribute of the group is assigned to an individual member of the group too.
The group may have together been fair but an individual in the group may not be.

(A) Representing the school board, Marcia Barthes presented to the school’s principal a list of recently elected school board members. Since only an elected member of the school board can act as its representative. Ms. Barthes’s name undoubtedly appears on that list.

This is not flawed. Only an elected member can act as a rep. Marcia acted as a rep. Marcia must be an elected member.
This is valid.

(B) Alan Caldalf, who likes being around young children, has decided to become a pediatrician. Since the one characteristic common to all good pediatricians is that they like young children, Mr. Caldalf will undoubtedly be a very good pediatrician.

Here, a necessary condition has been taken to be sufficient. Liking young children is common to all good paediatricians. Because Caldalf likes children, he has that necessary quality but it may not be sufficient to become a good paediatrician.

(C) Jorge Diaz is a teacher at a music school nationally known for the excellence of its conducting faculty. Since Mr. Diaz has recently been commended for the excellence of his teaching, he is undoubtedly a member of the school’s conducting faculty.

The school has excellent conducting faculty. Mr Diaz, a teacher at school is excellent too. Then we cannot say that he must be a part of the conducting faculty. This is a flaw but not the same flaw. We are not assuming that a group character is applicable to an individual member too. We are given that Mr Diaz is excellent. We are assuming that he belongs to that group then.

(D) Ula Borg, who has sold real estate for Arcande Realty for many years, undoubtedly sold fewer houses last year that she had the year before since the number of houses sold last year by Arcande Realty is far lower than the number sold the previous year.

Arcande Realty sold far fewer houses last year. Ula Borg who sells for Arcande must have sold far fewer houses too last year.
The characteristic of the group (all realtors for Arcande) is assumed to be applicable to one member (Ula) too. This is the same flaw as our original argument had.

(E) The members of the local historical society unanimously support designating the First National Bank building a historical landmark. Since Evelyn George is a member of that society, she undoubtedly favors according landmark status to the city hall as well.

Here, members unanimously support. This means that every member does support. Hence we can say that George supports too. There is no flaw here.

Answer (D).­

In the above statement, there is no direct co-relation depicted between Judge Khalid and reasonable and fair Amlec panel, except that Judge Khalid is one of the seven members of this panel.
Panel were reasonable and fair in its decision, we don't know whether any one member contributed more than any other.



In option D,
Ula Borg has sold real estate for Arcande Realty. we don't know whether she is the only one or there are others as well who sell property for Arcande realty.
so a depreciation is number of houses sold by Arcande realty can not be directly linked to Ula Borg's performance last year.

Ans :D

Hi,

SajjadAhmad
GMATNinja
Bunuel
@Experts

For the argument here are my analysis

Passage analysis :
Judge Khalid was a member of panel for A's case. For Sidmon's case Judge Khalid is being given sole responsibility.
Just becasue he was a member of panel for A's case ; he is expected to be fair and reasonable for Sidmon's case . We don't know what Judge's Khalid contribution in A's canse as an individual and what was the contribuion of other members of the panel for A's case.

Assumption : Just becasue Judge Khalid was member of panel ; its assumed that he was the major conttributor and hence is assigned sole responsibility in Sidmon's case

here i marked choice E : becasue i missed to pay attention on FLAWED in question stem

Can anyone comment that if the above analysis drawn are correct .
Second , if the question was "Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most parallel to that contained in the passage?" then would option E be correct ?

(D) Ula Borg, who has sold real estate for Arcande Realty for many years, undoubtedly sold fewer houses last year that she had the year before since the number of houses sold last year by Arcande Realty is far lower than the number sold the previous year.

(E) The members of the local historical society unanimously support designating the First National Bank building a historical landmark. Since Evelyn George is a member of that society, she undoubtedly favors according landmark status to the city hall as well.
---

E says "The members of the local historical society unanimously support designating the First National Bank..." hence this doesnt parallel the flawed reasoning in the argument.

One single member is not representative of the whole, D and E are the only 2 close contenders.

Eliminate E because it says "unanimously"

Here is my thinking behind picking D:

The logic behind the question is that just because a certain committee (Amlec here) was reasonable and fair in its judgment, all members of that committee (including Judge Khalid) were fair. And it is given this logic that the two sides in the Simdon dispute are justified to have confidence in Judge Khalid's reasonableness and fairness.

Now, at this point, I would think to myself that maybe the committee as a whole was fair but Judge Khalid was a maniac (aka unfair and unreasonable).

Option D is the only option that uses a similar kind of logic that just because the whole company saw declining sales y-o-y, Ula must also have sold lesser houses. But what if Ula sold 0 house last year and sold 1 this year?

Hope this helps.

The reasoning in E is not similar to the reasoning in the argument

The argument tell us something on the lines of "The panel did a good job".
From this statement, it is POSSIBLE that each member of the panel did a good job, but we cannot be sure.
However, that is what the argument assumes: Judge Khaled was on the panel, so he must have done a good job, so he will be a good choice.

The reasoning in Answer Choice E is different.
E says something on the lines of "All members of the panel agree"
If that is true, we are NOT assuming anything when we say that a particular member agrees

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Is it possible for someone to explain why option C is incorrect? Bunuel GMATNinja

Doesn't B here also make the same flawed assumption that because the man is good around children, he would be a good pediatrician similar to the assumption made in the passage given in the question. B seemed very obvious to me, but the other options also make sense.