Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 4 · Question 10

Incorrect. Neither side of the conversation discusses holding Stalin guilty. At most, the Writers might argue that his slipping sanity later in his rule excuses some of the actions carried out then, but even that's a stretch as there's no connection between those ideas.

Incorrect. Both sides of the debate characterize Stalin's actions as morbidly suspicious, so this answer reflects a point of agreement.

Incorrect. The debate isn't over what suggests Stalin was not sane—that describes an argument where both sides agree that he wasn't. Here, the Writers believes both of these factors show he wasn't sane, whereas the Critic believes that neither do.

Incorrect. The Writers don't discuss tyranny at all, and the Critic doesn't say that tyranny inevitably leads to cruelty—just that they were correlated under Stalin. The Critic does believe that tyranny inevitably leads to morbidly suspicious tyrants, but that's not directly connected to cruelty.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
W: Stalin was paranoid and vindictive in his last years, so his sanity was questionable.

C: Stalin needed to be paranoid throughout his rule because he was a tyrant, and without it he wouldn't have stayed in power.

Answer Anticipation:
This is the rare Point at Issue question where we don't get two speakers—rather, both arguments are presented by the same person! When this happens, it's important to split apart the two arguments so you can see what each one is saying.

Here, the writers bring up some characteristics of Stalin in his later rule to highlight that his sanity may have been slipping. The Critic agrees that Stalin showed these characteristics (primarily, paranoia/morbid suspiciousness), but that he did so throughout his rule. And it wasn't because of issues with his sanity—it was because tyrants need to be suspicious/paranoid to stay in power.

The two sides of the debate agree on the "premises"—that Stalin had certain characteristics. They disagree on the reason for it—with the Writers thinking it was because of slipping sanity, but the Critic thinking it was because he was a tyrant. Let's find an answer reflecting those diverging explanations.

Answer Explanation:
The Writers believe that Stalin's vindictiveness and secrecy were due to him losing his sanity in the later years, whereas the Critic believes that the characteristics leading to these things were equally present throughout his rule and that, rather, as a tyrant he needed these things to stay in power. So the Writers believe that Stalin's psychological state caused his misdeeds, whereas the Critic believes it was his political condition (being a tyrant).

Key Takeaway:
When a Point at Issue question doesn't separate the two viewpoints for you, make sure you do it yourself so that you don't confuse who holds which belief!