Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 1 · Question 25

Incorrect. The argument isn't about balancing the pros and cons of this device—it just wonders whether it's causing a specific phenomenon. As such, the number of collisions it has prevented is out of scope.

Incorrect. Causal statements are inherently causal—the cause has to happen before the effect, and close enough that they can be related. This answer establishes that that is the case—the devices being installed predate the information disappearing. That strengthens the argument, so this answer is incorrect. We'd need an answer establishing that the information was disappearing before the devices were installed.

Incorrect. Without knowing why this is the case, we can't tie it into the argument about the devices causing the information disappearing. If anything, it seems as if a move to switch the frequencies—based on what the stimulus says about the devices and air traffic radars operating on the same frequencies—would suggest that it's believed the device is responsible for the problem here, which certainly doesn't weaken that argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Past two years — The number of planes with a new device has increased
Past two years — Key information is increasingly disappearing from screens
Conclusion — The devices are responsible for the disappearing information

Answer Anticipation:
Claiming that one thing is "responsible" for another is claiming that it's causing the other. We know that correlation/causation flaws are common in Weaken questions so a causal conclusion should catch our attention! If we see it we should check the premises to see if they establish a correlation. Here they do—over a two—year period a device was installed in more and more planes and information disappeared with increasing regularity.

Since we have a correlation/causation flaw we should anticipate one of the common answers:
(1) Identify an alternative cause (something that would have led to both new devices being installed and information disappearing—e.g. solar flares maybe?)
(2) Counterexamples (places where the information is disappearing despite the planes not having the devices; places where the devices are installed but information isn't disappearing)
(3) Reversed causality (maybe the devices are being installed because no one can figure out why the information is disappearing from screens necessitating a technological solution to avoid crashes)

Answer Explanation:
This answer is the flip of (B). If the information was disappearing before the devices were installed then the devices can't have caused at least those initial cases of disappearing information weakening the argument. This is a variation of the counterexample answer choice—it shows a situation where the effect was present without the cause.

Key Takeaway:
Causality has an inherent timeline element to it—the cause must show up before the effect. As such answers that play with the timeline are in scope and should be fully considered.

Incorrect. Without tying those large airports to the devices, this answer is out of scope. If anything, though, this answer could align with the argument as, presumably, larger airports have more airplanes, and more airplanes would have more devices.