Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 13

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Tell parents how much violence a TV show has
Approach - Use 1-4 guns in newspaper listing after show titles

Answer Anticipation:
In many questions that present a Goal/Approach structure, the motive behind an action ends up being relevant, as goals, approaches, and outcomes don't necessarily align. However, the question stem here tells us that we're looking for a necessary premise in order for the plan to meet its stated purpose. In other words, we're looking for something required for the plan to work.

So let's look at the goal and the plan. The goal is to warn parents of violence in TV shows. The plan is to put guns next to the shows in newspaper listings in order to warn them.

This has two assumptions. First, it assumes that parents are going to look in newspapers at this information. It's possible that they stick to other sections and don't look at the TV guide or reviews. Second, it assumes that parents will correctly interpret what the guns mean—maybe they think it's like the Billboard charts ("Number 1 with a bullet!") and wouldn't understand that it means the shows are violent.

Note that the stated goal is to "forewarn" parents of the violence, not stop children from watching these shows—what the parents do with the information is out of scope.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects one of the required assumptions for the system to work. If parents wouldn't read or pay attention to these ratings in the listings, then they can't be forewarned of violent content by the system, and the whole thing falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure to read the question stem! In many questions that feature Goals/Approaches, the flaw is that the argument conflates the goal/motive, the approach, and the outcome. However, this question stem asks about the efficacy of the system, and so we needed to change what we were looking for.

Incorrect. The relative frequency of very and not-so violent shows doesn't speak to whether parents would be warned about the content of the shows. The system could work even if almost all shows were rated with one gun!

Incorrect. The station concludes that the system will work, not that it's the most effective system. A system can be effective even if there's a better system out there.

Incorrect. There needs to be no obligation to create a system to reach a conclusion that the system will work.

Incorrect. The stated goal isn't to reduce the amount of violence on TV, but rather to forewarn parents about violence on TV. As such, this answer is out of scope.