Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 3 · Question 3

Incorrect. P doesn't discuss the literary value of oral poetry at all, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. P calls M's hypothesis "laughable" and questions why someone would act in the manner that M claims, so P definitely attempts to refute M's thesis.

Incorrect. P doesn't discuss the details of the Phoenician writing system at all.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Hypothesis/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
NA/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
M: Whoever invented the Greek alphabet adapted the Phoenician alphabet to write down Homer's poems.

P: That's ridiculous. That person wouldn't need to write it down, and no one else could have read it.

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem asks us to describe how P rebuts M's argument. When a Methods of Reasoning question asks us about a rebuttal, we should start with a couple considerations:
(1) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the conclusion of the first view? If she disagrees, does she think the conclusion is wrong or just unproven?
(2) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the premises of the initial argument? With the assumptions/logic? Does she bring in new information?

Taking a look here, there's no real premise presented by M—just a hypothesis. And P believes that the hypothesis is "laughable"—which isn't just saying that the argument is wrong, but that's it's not even a serious attempt at an explanation.

How does P arrive at that opposed conclusion? By arguing that the hypothesis just doesn't make sense. Someone who could write down a Homeric poem from memory wouldn't need it written down. And if someone created an alphabet, no one else would be able to read it—so that person wouldn't write it down to share with others.

We don't need to analyze P's logic (yet—that may show up in the next question) since this is a Methods of Reasoning question. Instead, let's find an answer showing that P argues M's hypothesis is laughable because there would be no good reason for a person to act the way that M hypothesizes.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects P's argument. She starts by calling M's hypothesis "laughable," which is functionally equivalent to "absurd." She then goes on to highlight the reasons that it would be pointless for a person to act as M hypothesized, further showing that she believes his hypothesis to be absurd.

Key Takeaway:
When a Methods of Reasoning question asks us about a rebuttal, we should start with a couple considerations:
(1) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the conclusion of the first view? If she disagrees, does she think the conclusion is wrong or just unproven?
(2) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the premises of the initial argument? With the assumptions/logic? Does she bring in new information?

Additionally, pay attention to strong opinion words (e.g., "laughable") as that strength tends to translate into the answers.

Incorrect. M doesn't really put forward any evidence. And P doesn't interpret evidence—she speaks in hypotheticals.