Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 17

Incorrect. This is definitely a tempting answer! However, it's not solely an emotional appeal to history. That appeal to history is used to make a positive argument for restoring city hall—it's crucial to maintaining respect for the government's authority. Since it mischaracterizes the argument, this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Mayor - The budget is tight, so we can't afford to restore city hall.

Citizen - Preserving city hall is crucial to respect for the government, so we can't afford not to.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever one argument is rebutting another, it's important to see if the rebuttal addresses the issue raised by the first viewpoint. That's especially important when the second speaker uses the same vocab as the first speaker.

Here, the debate seems to be over whether the city can afford to restore city hall, with the Mayor against it and the Citizen for it. However, when the Mayor talks about affording the restoration, she talks about the expense during a budget crunch.

The Citizen, on the other hand, talks about respect for the government, not the cost of the renovation.

As such, the Citizen is addressing a different issue than the one raised by the Mayor, and so her rebuttal fails. If the city can't afford it, the city can't afford it, no matter how much respect for the government it may garner. Let's find an answer highlighting this Ambiguous Word Usage flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes the Ambiguous Word Usage flaw that we identified. The Mayor says "afford" to mean the monetary cost of repairs. The Citizen uses "afford" to refer to the civic costs of not doing something. Since the rebuttal deals with a fundamentally different argument than the initial one, it's flawed, and so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a flaw-based argument is asking about a rebuttal, start by seeing if the rebuttal addresses the argument/conclusion made by the opposing point. And check any shared language—are they using the same definition? If not, that's a problem.

Incorrect. The Citizen (respectfully) disagrees with the Mayor, so she doesn't appeal to his authority, let alone inappropriately.

Incorrect. The Mayor's argument relies on the expense, not the Citizen's. Additionally, there's no reason to believe that the Mayor is assuming that the restoration would be expensive—she raises that as a premise.

Incorrect. First, the Citizen doesn't necessarily agree with the use of "luxury," and it's his argument we're pointing out a flaw in. Second, he doesn't rely on the shared view ("is right") that the building is outdated in reaching his conclusion, so this answer is incorrect.