Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 13

Incorrect. There's no discussion of how business owners feel, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. While it is noted that people who didn't otherwise shop at these shops are now shopping there, that doesn't guarantee higher profits. They may be less profitable businesses generally, or the ramps may eat up all of the additional profits. Since profits aren't mentioned in the stimulus, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), there's no discussion of profit in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of what percent of businesses have or don't have accommodations for wheelchair users, so we can't support an answer saying that "[m]ost" businesses lack them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Some people: Certain businesses don't need to be accessible to wheelchair users because wheelchair users don't go to those businesses.

Rebuttal: When ramps are installed, wheelchair users start heading to those businesses.

Answer Anticipation:
First, an important note on opposing points in Must Be True questions. We're told to accept the stimulus statements as true in this question type, but there's an important nuance when the author presents that opposing point. We need to accept as true that some people argue something, but we don't need to accept the argument as true. So here, we don't need to accept that it's true that ramps aren't necessary at certain businesses because wheelchair users don't shop there—we just need to accept as true that some people argue that. Since that's unlikely to lead to an inference, we can likely safely ignore that opening line.

What we should focus on is what the Editorialist argues after the pivot ("however"). There the Editorialist notes that a certain change precedes yet another change: adding ramps results in those in wheelchairs starting to shop at a business. While this is a correlation and that doesn't prove causation it is strong enough to suggest that causality here is a distinct possibility in at least some cases—especially since this is a Most Strongly Supported question instead of a pure Must Be True. As such we should look for an answer talking about how the lack of ramps was preventing at least some people from shopping at the stores without them.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation aligns with the noted correlation and is weak enough to be correct in a Most Strongly Supported question that doesn't have particularly strong statements in the stimulus. The fact that adding in wheelchair ramps is immediately followed by wheelchair—using customers starting to frequent businesses for the first time suggests that at least some wheelchair users don't go to certain businesses because they lack ramps.

Key Takeaway:
Most Strongly Supported Must Be True questions do frequently have answers that don't have to be true but are just very strongly supported. Weaker answers that aren't 100% certain are much better than stronger ones when you're considering picking an answer that falls into this category.