Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 1

Incorrect. The argument is about whether those who can read Braille can adapt to the new system, so other symbol systems are out of scope. Even if there is another symbol system that can be represented using the new screen, that doesn't speak to whether people who can read Braille can translate that skill here.

Incorrect. Even if other people can similarly adapt, that doesn't preclude people who can read Braille from easily adapting, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
A new technology allows Braille patterns to show up as heat patterns on computer screens, so people who can read Braille will easily be able to use this system.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here relies on a common type of logic to reach the conclusion that people who can read Braille will "easily" be able to use the new system—comparative logic.

The stimulus establishes, in the premises, that the two systems use the same patterns to represent text. Because of this, it concludes that people who can use one can use the other. In other words, it assumes that the only relevant factor in being able to use the new system is being able to understand the patterns of raised dots.

However, there could be other relevant differences—including the one explicitly mentioned in the passage. Braille uses raised dots that can be read via touch, but the new system uses heat. If people who can sense the raised dots can't similarly distinguish the patterns when it's created using heat, then the argument falls apart.

Let's find an answer stating that this difference in the systems doesn't preclude people from easily adapting.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the difference noted in the stimulus—raised dots vs. heat—doesn't preclude people who can read Braille from adapting. If people who can tell the symbols when they're raised dots don't have an ability to detect those patterns in heat on a screen, then the argument falls apart. This is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument is relying on two systems being relevantly similar, any relevant difference can throw a wrench in the works.

Incorrect. What the patterns in Braille look like or what they're similar to doesn't speak to the ability to recognize such patterns when they're raised dots or heated patterns, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. What will "eventually" be possible is almost certainly not necessary for what is currently true.