Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 2 · Question 25

Incorrect. This is such a great trap answer! It seems as if it justifies acting to help his mother over George, a friend of Jack's aunt. However, if you selected this answer, you forgot an important piece of information—Jack promised his aunt that he'd make her will public. That's a duty to a family member that, according to this principle, takes priority for Jack, thus cutting against the action he took.

Incorrect. First, this answer provides a sufficient condition for not violating a promise. Since Jack violated a promise to his aunt, this answer can't justify his action. Additionally, there's no indication that anyone knows of Jack's promise (outside of his aunt), so we can't even tell if someone else would learn of Jack violating the promise.

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that giving the inheritance to George would not benefit him or anyone. Giving the money to Jack's mother would benefit her and harm no one. So neither option harms anyone, and thus the second part of this answer choice doesn't line up with the situation as described.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Jack's promise - After my aunt dies, I'll make her will public
Keeps it - George (aunt's friend) gets the money
Breaks it - Jack's mom gets the money
If George gets it, it'd benefit no one. If Jack's mom gets it, it benefits people but does no harm.
Jack's action - Broke the promise/kept the will secret

Answer Anticipation:
For Strengthen (Principle) questions, we generally want to justify a judgment in the conclusion based on the details in the premises. Here, the judgment is given in the question stem—that Jack was required to act the way he did.

How did he act? He broke a promise to his aunt and kept her will secret, sending her money to his mom instead of his aunt's friend, George. That's . . . not seemingly on the up-and-up. There must be something in the stimulus that could be used to justify his action.

The only thing in there that could possibly do so is that the money would be squandered by George, not benefiting him or anyone else. On the other hand, giving the money to his mother will benefit her and others while harming no one.

Since that's the only positive detail arguing in favor of Jack's action, that's likely what the answer will say:
One should always act in a way that benefits the most people.

Answer Explanation:
Giving the money to George will benefit neither George nor anyone else. Giving the money to Jack's mom will benefit her and others. Between the two, giving the money to his mom will benefit the greatest number of people, and this principle thus justifies Jack's action of not making the will public and ensuring his mother got the money.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions are all about the details presented. Be sure that you're finding an answer that is precisely addressing the situation as described, while also justifying the conclusion. Here, we had an answer that skewed the former ((A)) and one that was close but failed to establish the latter ((E)).

Incorrect. This answer establishes that Jack isn't bound to the promise he made to his aunt, but that just means he could not follow through and keep the will secret. It doesn't actively justify doing so. As such, it falls short of addressing the question stem.