Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 3 · Question 26

Incorrect. The Columnist's argument is that people aren't treated unfairly even when their tax dollars go to art they find abominable, so this principle doesn't align with her argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Judgment - Taxpayers who find some government-funded art abominable aren't being treated unfairly
Situation - Elected representatives can fund the arts with tax dollars. Some of this art is offensive to individuals.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally reach a judgment in the conclusion that needs to be justified based on the details in the stimulus.

Here, the Columnist's conclusion is that it's not unjust for taxpayer dollars to fund works or art that some taxpayers find "abominable."

Why not? There's really only one detail in the premises that establish a reason why this shouldn't be considered unjust—that the representatives are "within their rights" to vote to spend taxpayer dollars to support the arts. All the other details provided establish that some people are offended by certain works of art, but that's not a reason to believe that they're being treated fairly. Only the rights of the representatives to vote to support the arts is in any way a justification for the judgment.

As such, the correct answer should establish that if it's within an elected representative's rights to vote for something, then anyone who feels their money was spent on something they dislike isn't being treated unjustly.

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals with the premise established by the Columnist, connecting it to the judgment made in the conclusion. The elected representatives are within their rights to support the arts with tax dollars, triggering the condition of this principle. As such, this answer justifies a conclusion that the general funding for the arts ending up going to art that some find abominable is warranted, and thus the people who feel that ways aren't being treated unjustly. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen (Principle) questions, always center your approach on the judgment made in the conclusion. That will let you identify the details in the stimulus that the author is relying on to justify it, and it will let you eliminate answers that don't build to supporting that judgment.

Incorrect. First, the argument never establishes what proportion of the representatives' constituents support funding the arts with taxpayer dollars. Second, this answer would reinforce the opening premise more than anything!

Incorrect. This answer doesn't justify the conclusion that these individuals aren't being treated unjustly—it just gives them an option to express their discontent!

Incorrect. This answer is about a right to complain, not whether someone is being treated unjustly. It's possible that someone has a right to complain about treatment that isn't unjust!