Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 21

Incorrect. This answer describes a rebuttal that points out a Circular Reasoning flaw in the first viewpoint. Paul doesn't do that—he brings up some counterexamples to Sarah's claims.

Incorrect. Paul discusses students who decide to volunteer more, not actions that should count as volunteering but aren't by Sarah.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
S: Forcing someone to do something isn't volunteering, so that person can't have a volunteering habit fostered, so forcing someone to volunteer can't foster volunteerism.

P: Some forced volunteers like it and continue on, so forcing people to volunteer can foster volunteerism.

Answer Anticipation:
When a second speaker is rebutting the first in a Methods of Reasoning question, we should go through a set of questions:
(1) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the conclusion of the first speaker? If the latter, does she think that the conclusion is wrong or just unsupported?
(2) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the premises of the first speaker? Does she question the logic or an assumption? Does she raise new considerations?

Here, Paul disagrees with Sarah's conclusion (explicitly—"I disagree."). How does he do so? Well, he definitely brings in new considerations—specifically, he brings up counterexamples to Sarah's blanket statements. She says that students who are forced to volunteer haven't really volunteered, and so they can't have a habit fostered in them. Paul brings up "[s]ome students" who, after being forced to volunteer, find they enjoy it and then continue to volunteer, and those students can be said to have had volunteerism fostered in them.

So let's find an answer reflecting that Paul brings up new considerations—counterexamples—to argue that Sarah's conclusion is wrong.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects Paul bringing in new considerations—the students who are forced to volunteer, like it, and then volunteer for real. Let's go back to make sure that this questions an assumption of Sarah's and not a premise. These students would serve as a counterexample to the claim that no one who has been forced to volunteer will then volunteer after. And Sarah never states that (she says people who have been forced to volunteer "ha[ve] not yet" volunteered), but she does assume it in concluding that forcing people to volunteer can't lead to volunteerism, so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a second speaker is rebutting the first in a Methods of Reasoning question, we should go through a set of questions:
(1) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the conclusion of the first speaker? If the latter, does she think that the conclusion is wrong or just unsupported?
(2) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the premises of the first speaker? Does she question the logic or an assumption? Does she raise new considerations?

Incorrect. Paul doesn't address Sarah's motives at all, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Sarah and Paul talk about the same policy, not different policies, and Paul argues that the policy Sarah dismisses could work. This answer misses all of those marks!