Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 2 · Question 18

Incorrect. That's not really an assumption—the President's role is to keep a company in business and profitable.

Incorrect. Tempting answer that does seem to address that Failure to Eliminate Alternatives flaw that we identified! However, the flaw wasn't that the argument failed to eliminate alternatives to bankruptcy, but rather alternatives to the solutions that the President recommends—reducing expansion or eliminating operating expenses. As such, this answer just misses the mark.

Incorrect. The President establishes that demand being down is causing profits to go down, and that this is a problem that needs to be addressed or bankruptcy may be on the table. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be other causes of decreased profits that could lead them to the same problem—it's just that, in this case, it's the demand shortfall.

Incorrect. If profits decline from an all-time low, even slightly, then they're at a new all-time low. That still presents problems for the company!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Profits and demand are down. If that continues, we may go bankrupt. So we need to reduce expansion or eliminate expenses.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument's conclusion is a common type of conclusion—a recommendation. When an argument makes a recommendation, it generally needs to establish the criteria by which a recommendation would be made, and then establish that the recommended course of action is the best way to reach that criteria.

Here, the argument does establish the relevant criteria—the company needs to stop the decline in profits due to decreased demand (otherwise, they may go bankrupt). However, it then concludes that the company must ("the only options") do one of two things. But it never establishes that these two things are the only options for achieving that end!

Since this argument treats two recommendations/solutions as the only solutions without establishing that there aren't other options, it's committing a Failure to Eliminate Alternatives flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the Failure to Eliminate Alternatives flaw that we identified. The President establishes that failure to increase profits might lead to bankruptcy, but from there she presents the only solutions as cutting costs/expansions. She fails to consider that there could be other ways to stop the decrease in profits—such as investing in advertising, or updating products, or lowering prices, or . . .

Key Takeaway:
There were two elements in this stimulus that led us in the same direction. The first was that the conclusion made a recommendation, and recommendations need criteria and premises establishing the recommended action meets that criteria. That suggested that the recommendation in the conclusion was assuming one of these two things. The second is that the conclusion used strong/restrictive language—"the only options"—which suggests the argument is ignoring alternative options. Both helped us identify a Failure to Eliminate Alternatives flaw.