The correct answer is (A).
(A) Parallel Flaw
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
A question that asks for an argument "most similar to that" in the stimulus is a Parallel Reasoning question. Moreover, the argument is described as "flawed." Therefore, the correct answer not only has to match the structure of the stimulus piece by piece, but it must commit the exact same error in reasoning.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
Using the word "invariably," the author presents some Formal Logic right off the bat: If someone is a paleomycologist (i.e., one who studies ancient fungi), then that person knows about all published works of all other paleomycologists. The author then presents Professor Mansour, who is familiar with the published works of one paleomycologist, Professor DeAngelis. From this, the author concludes that Professor Mansour must be a paleomycologist. Go ahead and translate the Formal Logic statements in order to more easily see the error in logic.
First Statement:
If paleomycologist _ familiar with all other paleomycologists' publications
Second and Third Statements:
If Mansour _ familiar with one paleomycologist's publications _ paleomycologist
Step 3: Make a Prediction
This argument makes not one, but two classic flaws in interpreting the Formal Logic. First off, being acquainted with all paleomycologists' works is the necessary result of being an ancient-fungus expert. It is not sufficient for concluding that one is a fungus expert. However, the author, when discussing Professor Mansour, makes this classic error by reversing the terms without negating them. Furthermore, paleomycologists are said to be acquainted with the works of all other fungus experts. Mansour is said to be acquainted with the work of only one paleomycologist: Professor DeAngelis. The correct answer will also include Formal Logic. It will provide one Formal Logic rule and will then commit the same two errors: treating the necessary condition as sufficient and basing a conclusion on evidence that only partially matches the necessary condition.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(A) gets everything rightÑin other words, it gets the logic all wrong in the same way the stimulus did. The Formal Logic here is: If one flight is delayed, then all connecting flights are also delayed. Evidence of one delayed connecting flight (not all) is then used to conclude that the original flight was also a delayed Global Airlines flight. Not only does this reverse the Formal Logic improperly (as happened in the stimulus), but the evidence only partially matches the necessary condition (as also happened in the stimulus). All connecting flights need to be delayed, but only one delayed connecting flight is cited here.
(B) is indeed flawed in how it handles the Formal Logic. However, this answer improperly negates the logic without reversing it, rather than reversing it without negating it. Furthermore, choice B doesn't make the same mistake of using partial evidence to reach a conclusion.
(C) doesn't demonstrate flawed Formal Logic. If fuel prices drop, expenses go down and income stays the same. That, as the conclusion indicates, is a recipe for increased profits. The only error here is a lack of information about Global's other revenues and expenditures. That's a lack of information, not an error in reasoning.
(D) mistakenly confuses a possible outcome with a certain outcome. Gavin's tenure means he is eligible to participate in the plan, but that doesn't warrant a conclusion that he does participate. That flaw, however, doesn't match either of the two flaws in the stimulus.
(E) fails in a couple of respects. Immediately, the parallelism falters when the Formal Logic leads to one of two possible results—something the original argument didn't have. Furthermore, while the evidence does address only part of the necessary condition, it indicates that Global Airlines doesn't meet the particular condition (losing passengers), which is also contrary to what happens in the original stimulus.
