Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 11

Incorrect. This answer suggests that the experts over the past year have created a "portfolio" that did better than the market, and so following their advice over that time period would have been a good idea. Since it undermines the claim that people should not "ever" follow the advice, it weakens the conclusion.

Incorrect. Even if the stocks did worse than the market, if they beat all other types of selected portfolios, that suggests that there's a reason to go with the advice over other means of selecting stocks. That undermines the conclusion that the advice shouldn't be followed.

Incorrect. If the measurements key to the comparison were not apples-to-apples, that calls the comparison into question, undermining the conclusion that relies on it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Successful consultants on show - 2,000 recommended stocks over 12 years did worse than the market
Conclusion - Don't ever follow the advice of these "experts"

Answer Anticipation:
Bizarro Weaken (and Strengthen) questions are a bit of a weird question type. Since there are going to be four answers that weaken the argument, that means the argument can't really be all that good. As such, it's often better to have a general idea of what you're trying to weaken and then look at the answers through that lens rather than have specific anticipations.

Here, the conclusion is that no one should ever follow the advice of stock market consultants. This is based on an analysis of 2,000 recommendations they made on a TV show over a 12-year period.

With that high-level view, we can anticipate answers in two broad categories:
(1) Anything that suggests a specific situation where their advice should be followed, or was good advice, outside of the TV show context
(2) Reasons to believe that the advice given on the TV show might not be representative of the advice they give in other situations

Both are generally derived from the very strong/broad conclusion—"no one should ever". That's categorical, and so any individual situations where a specific person/group should follow their advice, even once, would serve to undermine it.

Answer Explanation:
If anything, independent analyses that agree with the premise in the stimulus will strengthen the argument, so this is the correct answer in this Bizarro Weaken question.

Key Takeaway:
Bizarro Weaken questions will have four answers that weaken the argument. That means that it's likely better to have a general view of what type of answers will undermine the conclusion rather than having specific anticipations.

Incorrect. This answer suggests that the consultants are giving better advice to the portfolios they consult for than the TV viewers, which would undermine the conclusion that "no one" should "ever" follow their advice. After all, it seems as if the portfolios that they make recommendations to did well after following their advice.