Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 13

Incorrect. Darla doesn't discuss the effect of a recession on unemployment, or of unemployment on the number of cars on the road, so she doesn't question Charles' premises.

Incorrect. There's a balance between fewer cars being on the road and those cars polluting more that would need to be analyzed to see if pollution goes up or down. As such, Darla's claim can be true even if Charles' conclusion is, if the balance is in that direction. This answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
C: In a recession, unemployment goes up, so fewer people are driving to work, and so pollution due to car exhaust goes down.

D: People can't afford new cars, and old cars pollute more, so there's no reason to think pollution will go down.

Answer Anticipation:
When a Method of Reasoning question asks about a rebuttal, we should start with a few considerations:
(1) Does the rebuttal reach the same or the opposite conclusion, or does it conclude that the opposing point has failed to establish its conclusion?
(2) Does it accept, reject, or remain silent on the opposing point's premises? Does it attack an assumption/logic? Does it bring up new considerations?

Here, Darla thinks that there's no reason to think that Charles' conclusion is correct. She doesn't question his premises, instead bringing up a new consideration. Therefore, we should look for an answer stating that she brings up new information to question Charles' conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
Darla brings up a new consideration—the relative pollution rate of new cars and old cars, and the higher rate of keeping an old car in a recession. This could potentially more than balance out any decrease in the number of cars on a road due to joblessness, weakening Charles' argument. As such, this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a Method of Reasoning question asks about a rebuttal, we should start with a few considerations:
(1) Does the rebuttal reach the same or the opposite conclusion, or does it conclude that the opposing point has failed to establish its conclusion?
(2) Does it accept, reject, or remain silent on the opposing point's premises? Does it attack an assumption/logic? Does it bring up new considerations?

Incorrect. Darla starts by questioning why anyone would think that Charles' conclusion is correct, so she does agree with it.

Incorrect. While this answer describes a common method of reasoning, it's not one present in this argument. For this to be true, Darla would need to apply Charles' logic to an analogous situation to show how it leads to a ridiculous/undesirable outcome.