Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 2 · Question 24

Incorrect. This answer is too general. While in this case, the Official recommends avoiding agricultural components for punishment, that's because her country has a high demand for the agriculture of Country X. She could believe that nonagricultural commodities are more important in their relationship with other countries from whom they don't import so much produce.

Incorrect. The stimulus uses the demand/popularity of Country X agriculture to justify not punishing Country X in a particular way, so she's not saying that that consideration is less important than anything.

Incorrect. This answer is tempting, but it's ultimately too strong to serve as a necessary premise. It doesn't need to be the case that the interests should "never" be jeopardized to punish a protectionist country. It just needs to be true that in this case, where the interests are quite high ("high demand"), that the balance is in favor of not punishing Country X in one particular way.

Incorrect. This answer is the reverse of what the argument requires. There, the interest in keeping Country X agriculture flowing into her country is sufficient for the Official to recommend against a punishment she feels is justified. As such, she believes that punishing the country shouldn't have priority over the interests of her country.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Recommendation - Punish Country X for protectionism
Caveat - There's a lot of demand in this country for Country X agriculture
Recommendation 2 - Don't punish them by refusing to sell agricultural equipment

Answer Anticipation:
This Trade Official goes through a bit of a back-and-forth here. She makes two recommendations—first, that Country X should be punished for protectionism; second, that one specific type of punishment shouldn't be used (refusing to sell them agricultural equipment).

Why shouldn't that punishment be used? Because her country gets a lot of agriculture from Country X. So, in other words, cutting off Country X's agricultural equipment supply will hurt her country by lowering the supply of agricultural products they use.

So, to justify the conclusion here, the Official is balancing self-interests against what she views as justified punishment. Let's find an answer that deals with that balance and then ensure that it's a necessary premise by negating it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals with the balance that the Official uses to justify her second recommendation. She thinks Country X should be punished, just not through agricultural equipment, because her country has high demand for Country X agriculture. As such, she's balancing their interests and the interests of justice ("deserves"). If those interests shouldn't be balanced, then her argument falls apart, making this answer a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
In Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions—especially the harder ones later in the section—be careful of answers that overshoot, or are too broad/general. To justify a specific instance, it's usually not necessary for something to be true that applies to other situations.