A person's personality is linked to that person's genes. And since a p

Question

A person's personality is linked to that person's genes. And since a person's genes do not ordinarily change over time, it follows that a person's personality remains unchanged with the passing of time.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

A. The way historians understand the First World War is related to what happened in that war. But what actually happened in that war cannot change. Therefore, historians' understanding of the war cannot change.

B. Market forces are to some degree influenced by governmental actions. Hence, a change in the government's policies could result in a change in the economy.

C. It is well known that some diseases have genetic causes. Therefore, it should be possible to prevent such diseases by manipulating the genes that cause them.

D. Getting regular exercise over a long period contributes to the prevention of heart disease. Therefore, getting regular exercise over a short period contributes slightly to the prevention of heart disease.

E. The levels of certain hormones control body temperature. Therefore, if one has a high fever, the levels of one's hormones must be elevated as well.

LSAT

CounterSniper · Answer

How I would attempt this one !!

QS-
personality => genes
genes =>  do not ordinarily change over time 
personality => remains unchanged

1. historians understand => First World War
 First World War =>  cannot change 
 historians' understanding => cannot change

looks fine !!

2. Market forces => influenced by governmental actions
 change in the government's policies => change in the economy

out

3. some diseases => genetic causes
 prevent such diseases => manipulating the genes

out

4. Getting regular exercise over long period => prevention of heart disease
 getting regular exercise over a short period => contributes slightly

out

5. levels of certain hormones => control body temperature
 one has a high fever => hormones elevated

out

A looks the most parallel

AliciaSierra · Answer

Super Easy question. Doesn't look official question.

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Hi,  MartyTargetTestPrep ,  VeritasKarishma ,  GMATNinja ,  generis ,  DmitryFarber ,  AjiteshArun ,  jennpt

Which war they're talking about in   red   part? 
Is it the war about  First World War ?
or,
Are they talking about  Second World War ?
or,
Is it the war  between Bangladesh and Pakistan  that happens in 1971?

How do someone convinced that the   red   part in choice A talks about  First World War ?

Thanks__

BrightOutlookJenn · Answer

Hi  AsadAbu

You need to be very sensitive to the definite article "the" in "the war." This means it must be referring to a particular war that has already been named. The only war that has already been named is the First World War, so that MUST be  the  war we are still talking about.

That's very different from "a war". The indefinite article "a" doesn't point to one special war; it can refer to any war.

Does that clear it up?

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

CounterSniper  a little bit correction

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Yes, I'm too much aware about the definite article (the), but the problem is in the use of "that". If the author indicates "First world war" by the use of "the" in the conclusion, why the author use the word "that" several times in the premise to indicate the same "first world war"?
Thanks__

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

jennpt ,
Is my understanding ok?
Thanks__

generis · Answer

I took the LSAT. 
I have no reason to suspect that the question is not legitimate.
What is easy for one person may be hard for another.

• The flaw in the prompt

The mistake in the prompt is the move from
genes and personality are  linked 
to
genes   determine   personality, such that
whatever happens to genes over time must also happen to personality over time.

Linkage is mistaken for "wholly determining."

The prompt incorrectly generalizes from
G has some influence on P
G - - - -> P
to
G completely determines P, such that if G changes or does not, P will follow suit.
G = no change, therefore
P = no change
That determinative or causal relationship uses an unbroken arrow, this way: 
If G does X → then P does X

Note:
-- that there is no hedging. Conclusion language is strong. 
 It follows that  . . . personality . . . remains unchanged.
-- that  no  change is at issue.
-- the question says that "personality is linked to genes."
But genes came first. The influence runs in one direction, from genes to personality.
G - - - > P

A. The way historians understand the First World War is related to what happened in that war. But what actually happened in that war cannot change. Therefore, historians' understanding of the war cannot change.

The way historians understand WWI,  U , is related to events in WWI,  E 
Just as genes come before personality, war events E came before historians' understanding of those events.
E - - - > U
Events in WWI will not change.
E = no change
Therefore, historians' understanding of the war cannot change.
Hence U = no change
If E does X, then U does X.

That structure looks identical to that in the prompt.  Keep.

B. Market forces are to some degree influenced by governmental actions. Hence, a change in the government's policies could result in a change in the economy. 
Governmental actions - - - > market forces
Change in gov't actions COULD = change in economy

Out.  The shift from  market forces  to  economy  is enough to reject the choice after having seen A.
In addition, this argument uses the tentative  could .
Finally, the argument is reasonable. The prompt and A are not.

C. It is well known that some diseases have genetic causes. Therefore, it should be possible to prevent such diseases by manipulating the genes that cause them.

Genes cause some diseases.
G → some D
Manipulate G = should be possible to prevent some D
 Out.  This option discusses change. The prompt and option A discuss NO change.
In addition, this argument uses the hypothetical  should be possible. 
Finally, the argument is reasonable. The prompt and A are not.

D. Getting regular exercise over a long period contributes to the prevention of heart disease. Therefore, getting regular exercise over a short period contributes slightly to the prevention of heart disease.

Long time E - - - -> part in preventing heart disease

Therefore 
short time E - - - -> SLIGHT role in preventing heart disease
•  Out.  Prompt and Answer A talk about no change over time.
This option talks about change over time: how much and how little.
This answer veers into " extent  of linear causality."
It is a fact that long term exercise plays a role in preventing heart disease.
That causality is factual. It is also not overdetermined. 
The prompt and answer A  conflate  linkage with causality.

E. The levels of certain hormones control body temperature. Therefore, if one has a high fever, the levels of one's hormones must be elevated as well. 
H levels → body temperature
Therefore, high body temperature (high fever) = high levels of H

• Out. This option discusses change, not lack thereof. 
Nor is this option parallel to the prompt.
Levels of certain hormones are not merely  linked  to body temperature.
The former  control  the latter. That part is  a fact,  not a bad assumption.
(That's the flawed and unstated assumption in the prompt.)
Finally, this option contains the classic logic mistake. A → B does not equal B → A
How the levels control body temperature is not clear.
We cannot reason backwards from high body temperatures to high levels of certain hormones.
There is no reverse causality.

The answer is A.

generis · Answer

AsadAbu , your instincts are good. The author's use of that for two sentences to point specifically to WWI, followed by the author's use of the to refer to WWI, is inconsistent—but not unclear. That is, at issue is historians' understanding of the First World War, of that war (and no other). Suppose that the last sentence had no article: Therefore, historians' understanding of war cannot change. In that case option A would be a hot mess. Option A would indeed be perfect if the last sentence used "that." But "the" war can mean absolutely nothing other than WWI in this context. Both that and the refer to particular, specific, and unique things. The Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique. From Oxford Dictionary Online, here . That Referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. From Oxford Dictionary Online, here . The war cannot mean any war. The war cannot mean some random war. The war means, quite literally, a defined war—and in particular, the one we've just been reading about. See my response above. Multiple choice = eliminate 4 bad answers. Do not look for one correct answer. Sure, keep a seemingly good answer, but do not stop reading. Compared to A, the other answers are not even close to the prompt. Articles in English can be really hard. Trust your instincts about the bigger logical picture. (I am not sure because of embedding, but I think that you might have written the linkages in the wrong direction.) You are definitely right on the SC part.

The inconsistency is oversight or purposely misleading.

unraveled · Answer

A person's personality is linked to that person's genes. And since a person's genes do not ordinarily change over time, it follows that a person's personality remains unchanged with the passing of time.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

A. The way historians understand the First World War is related to what happened in that war. But what actually happened in that war cannot change. Therefore, historians' understanding of the war cannot change. - CORRECT. Brings the absoluteness that the passage has in it's logic. Rigidity of the logic makes it comparable to the original logic.

B. Market forces are to some degree influenced by governmental actions. Hence, a change in the government's policies could result in a change in the economy. - WRONG. Makes sense.

C. It is well known that some diseases have genetic causes. Therefore, it should be possible to prevent such diseases by manipulating the genes that cause them. - WRONG. Also, makes sense.

D. Getting regular exercise over a long period contributes to the prevention of heart disease. Therefore, getting regular exercise over a short period contributes slightly to the prevention of heart disease. - WRONG. This too makes sense.

E. The levels of certain hormones control body temperature. Therefore, if one has a high fever, the levels of one's hormones must be elevated as well. - WRONG. This needs further assumptions to be made thus it's not a good choice.

Answer A.

A person's personality is linked to that person's genes. And since a p

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A person's personality is linked to that person's genes. And since a p

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards