Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 2

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses traits developed in competitive athletics translating to other aspects of life, so there can't be a misinterpretation over this.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses the outcome of specific sporting events ("winning") so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses other forms of activities, so we have yet another out—of—scope answer.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Misinterpretation

Stimulus Summary:
B: Sports allow kids to engage with emotions and put in effort, so all kids should be allowed to play competitive sports.

P: Sure, sports help some kids, but others don't care to compete and so shouldn't be forced to play sports.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever the second speaker attempts to rebut the first speaker's argument, check to see if the rebuttal addresses the actual argument. Here, it doesn't.

Brewer's argument is that all kids should have the "opportunity" to participate in competitive sports. Polanski on the other hand disagrees with Brewer's recommendation because "mak[ing]" certain kids participate in sports would cause a dislike of athletics.

However Brewer never said that kids should be forced to participate ("make them participate") just that they should have the chance to. Polanski has moved the goalposts of the argument (pun absolutely intended) there so let's find an answer highlighting this shift from opportunity to forced enrollment.

Answer Explanation:
Polanski's argument is meant to undermine the view that all kids—regardless of having a "taste for competition"—should be forced to participate in sports. Brewer however argues only that they should have the opportunity to participate. As such this answer correctly describes the misinterpretation in Polanski's argument.

Key Takeaway:
When the second speaker is rebutting an argument made by the first consider what argument their statements actually rebuts and then compare that to the actual argument. Many times the rebuttal will miss the mark—and in Misinterpretation questions it will always miss the mark.

Incorrect. Based on Brewer's statements, this could definitely be an answer . . . if Polanski had a different rebuttal. Brewer does establish that emotional engagement can be motivating ("stimulate them to put maximum effort") and it would be easy to misinterpret that as her saying that it's a requirement to be motivated. However Polanski doesn't address that portion of his argument—instead he focuses on kids being forced to participate in sports.