Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 1

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Well-run program - $15m/yr on maintenance, limiting fixes to $10m
Actual program - $1m/yr on maintenance, leading to $400m in fixes
Therefore - The actual maintenance program is an example of bad money decisions

Answer Anticipation:
In general, factual statements are more likely to be premises, and opinions/judgments are more likely to be conclusions. Here, the Taxpayer brings up the relative costs of two different bridge-maintenance plans to support an opinion on whether the budget around that topic was responsible or not (it was not).

Since we have numbers backing up an opinion, that opinion is the main point of the argument.

Note that the question stem has a lead in—the main point is that Metro City __________. As such, we should look for an answer reflecting the Taxpayer's opinion of the City—they were irresponsible with how they budgeted for bridge maintenance/reconstruction.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the Taxpayer's judgment on the bridge budget of Metro City. She believes that that budget demonstrated fiscal responsibility because they didn't spend nearly enough on maintenance. Another way of saying that? They should have spent more on maintenance, as this answer states. This is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
In general, a "should" statement can't be supported without some type of "should" premise. The exception to that is when there's a clear judgment made. Here, saying that one action is an example of "fiscal irresponsibility" is enough to convey the idea that that action shouldn't be done.

Incorrect. The Taxpayer thinks the city should have spent more money on bridge maintenance, not reconstruction.

Incorrect. The Taxpayer believes that the city is spending an irresponsibly low amount on maintenance—$1m/yr instead of $15m/yr.

Incorrect. While the Taxpayer does state that the city is underspending on maintenance to economize, she never states that they're doing so to save money in case of emergencies.

Incorrect. The argument never states how much the bridges cost to build, so this answer is out of scope.