Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. This relative statement can't justify the absolute conclusion—even if Maria trained harder than Sue, she still might not have trained hard.

Incorrect. This answer reverses the argument. Conditionals justify a conclusion that matches its necessary condition by establishing premises that match the sufficient. Here, the sufficient condition matches the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon — Maria won a race, beating 4x winner Sue
Explanation — Maria trained hard

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions connect the details in the premises to the conclusion. There's not much to this argument, so we can quickly form a solid anticipation. Since there are two details in the premises, we can anticipate two answers:
If Maria won the race, she must have trained hard
If Maria beat a 4x winner (or it could state it directly—if she beat Sue), she must have trained hard

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the premise to the conclusion. Maria did beat a four—time winner. If that could only happen if she had trained hard, then she must have trained hard—thus justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions generally have straightforward answers, directly connecting something from the premise to the conclusion. These answers also tend to be conditional. Remember on that note—conditional statements justify a conclusion that matches the necessary condition based on a premise that matches the sufficient.

Incorrect. The argument is about Maria and her training habits, so Sue's training habits are out of scope. This answer would justify a conclusion that Sue didn't train hard, but that doesn't tell us anything about Maria's training.

Incorrect. What is usually the case is immaterial—here, Maria won the race.