Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 7

Incorrect. What was once the case is out of scope as to what should be done in the present/near future.

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is whether a proposal is possible, not whether it's a good idea. Even if it were a good idea, those involved wouldn't necessarily need to agree it's a good idea. This answer is therefore out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background - Caronian-speakers make up a minority population in several countries

Recommendation - Give autonomy as an independent nation to Caronian-speaking regions

Argument - Caronian-speakers are scattered and can't be united in a continuous nation, so the recommendation is impossible

Answer Anticipation:
That's a strong conclusion—that a recommendation is impossible ("cannot be satisfied"). If there's any way, no matter how outlandish, to satisfy the recommendation, then the conclusion falls apart. Since we're looking for a necessary premise, we should look for such a possibility to rule out.

Here, the argument's reasoning for saying that this recommendation is impossible is that the Caronian-speakers are widely spread out and can't be united within a continuous boundary. So it would be impossible to form a contiguous Caronian-speaker nation.

However, that doesn't mean it's impossible. The US has Alaska, Hawaii, and some territories throughout the world, and the US isn't unique. If a Caronian nation could be formed from non-continuous regions, then the argument falls apart, so let's find an answer stating that such a non-continuous nation is impossible.

Answer Explanation:
The scattered nature of the regions inhabited by Caronian-speakers is used to justify the conclusion that a nation can't be formed that's majority Caronian-speakers. That jumps between concepts, and this answer connects them. If the recommendation would be satisfied by the creation of a disconnected nation, then the argument's objection to the recommendation falls apart, making this a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
While you don't want to bring in outside information to the argument since they don't rely on it, that doesn't mean that you can't use real-world examples to think through why an argument has a gap in it! Here, noting that there are countries that don't have continuous borders wasn't necessary to answer the question—but knowing that to be true allowed us to know that the premise didn't prove the conclusion.

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses a nation allowing Caronian-speakers to be the majority population, so it doesn't assume there's a lack of non-Caronian-speakers in this nation. This answer is also about citizens, not residents, so it's further out of scope.

Incorrect. Whether or not this is the case doesn't speak to whether a nation can be created that's made up of a majority Caronian-speakers, making it out of scope.