Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 3

Incorrect. First, there's no "dilemma" presented by the Land Developer, as both sides believe the call on what to do is clear. Second, the Environmentalist actively argues against what the Developer says—he doesn't just "clarify" something said by the opposing point.

Incorrect. The Environmentalist goes after the Developer's logic by applying it to an analogous situation, so there's no Attacking the Person flaw.

Incorrect. The Environmentalist doesn't believe that the Developer's argument falls short of proving its point—he believes it's wrong. As such, there's no call for more evidence to be presented.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
LD: All species eventually go extinct, so it's a waste of money to try to save them.

E: That's like saying everyone dies, so let's not cure cancer.

Answer Anticipation:
There are common methods of reasoning that show up in this question type, so it's useful to have a general sense of each of them.

This argument falls into one of them. It uses the same logic as the opposing point, applied to an analogous situation, to show that the logic must be flawed/it's ridiculous. Here, the Environmentalist analogizes from the Developer's argument to a situation involving humans to show that her recommendation is based on questionable reasoning, so we should look for an answer reflecting that method of reasoning.

This common method of reasoning—reducing the argument to the absurd—is one way that an argument can use an analogy.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the use of an analogy ("applied to a different situation") to show that the logic is unacceptable in that context, in order to support a conclusion that the logic is unacceptable in the initial context. Since this answer correctly describes the rebuttal, it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
There are some common methods of reasoning that show up in this question type. Analogies are frequently used as methods of reasoning, but there are some more-specific uses of them—such as we saw here. Applying the original logic to an analogous situation to show that it's unacceptable/ridiculous is a common method of reasoning you should be familiar with.

Incorrect. The Environmentalist is on board for spending money (to research cures for cancer and fight against animal extinction), so this answer is incorrect.