Because people are generally better

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match0% picked this

   The best elementary school math teachers are not those for whom math was always easy. Teachers who had to struggle through math themselves are

   This doesn't have any element of seeing errors in other's work vs. your own.

   0%
2. B

   Bad Match2% picked this

   One must make a special effort to clearly explain one’s views to someone else; people normally find it easier to understand their own

   This doesn't have any element of seeing errors in other's work vs. your own.

   2%
3. C

   Weak Match5% picked this

   Juries composed of legal novices, rather than panels of lawyers, should be the final arbiters in legal proceedings. People who are not legal experts

   This does offer a distinction between two situations and says who would be better to judge the situation. Legal novices would be better at judging the goodness of a legal argument than would other lawyers, so we should compose juries with legal novices rather than lawyers. But the relationship between legal novices and lawyers is one between "naive, inexperienced, not jaded" and "too familiar, too experienced, too jaded to the legal profession". It's not a strong match for "judging yourself vs. judging others". I can see fighting for this answer because novices vs lawyers is like "fresh eyes vs. stale familiarity", and having someone else see your work to look for mistakes is kind of like preferring their fresh eyes to your stale familiarity. But I'm working too hard to make that connection, when a different available answer doesn't make me work that hard. And the correct answer's advice is more similar to the original principle's advice than this answer choice's advice is. This answer choice's advice introduces a brand new concept of "how we impanel juries".

   5%
4. D

   Correct92% picked this

   People should always have their writing proofread by someone else. Someone who does not know in advance what is meant to be said is

   Why this is right

   This offers a superiority principle that is similar to the distinction in the original between judging your own work and judging someone else's. When we proofread something we wrote, we know in advance what we meant to write, so we are worse at spotting typos than would be someone who doesn't know what's about to be said. Thus, this situation replicates the "we're not as good at judging our own work as someone else would be". And the conclusion part is a great language match: People should always have their writing proofread by someone else is a great match for One should always have one's own work checked by someone else If anything, the match is TOO good. This is the only Parallel type question I've ever seen in LR where the correct answer is so similar in topic and feel to the original.

   Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   92%
5. E

   Bad Match1% picked this

   Two people going out for dinner will have a more enjoyable meal if they order for each other. By allowing someone else to choose,

   This doesn't show that you're better at judging someone else's work than your own. It just suggests that you're more likely to try something new if someone else picks for you rather than you picking yourself. And there's no advice offered like, "a good principle is that one should always let someone else order for them". It's expressed in a more hypothetical way -- "if you do it, you'll have a more enjoyable meal"

   1%