Logical reasoning PrepTest 110 · Section 3 · Question 12

Incorrect. The Politician uses betray in its common sense each time it shows up—go against (the principles).

Incorrect. "Common" here is used in one of its well common senses to mean "shared."

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Valid

Question Type:
Argument Completion (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
P: My opponents want compromise, but the founders of the city built it on principles and compromising those principles betrays their goals, so those opponents want to betray the goals of the city's founders.

C: Your argument is flawed because it misuses the word ____________ unless you assume that the different views reflect different principles.

Answer Anticipation:
The Critic is rebutting the Politician's argument because of a misleading use of a term. That either means the Politician is using a word in a sense that doesn't line up with its meaning, or she's using the same term twice but with different definitions. None of the words seem to be used in a manner contrary to valid definitions, so we're left with looking for a word that's used in two different senses.

Looking to see what words are repeated, we see opponents show up twice, but the Politician is referring to the same group both times. She brings up betrayal twice, but the first is in a rule (Compromise those principles → Betray founders' goals) and the second applies that rule, so there's no shift in meaning. Principles are mentioned more than once, but in both cases it's talking about the underlying ideas that the city was founded on—and the Critic conditions his rebuttal on a specific use of principles, anyway.

That leaves us with compromise! And the Politician does shift the meaning from how her opponents use compromise (come together to reach a mutually agreeable solution) and how the Politician does (gives up on or reduces the principles). By shifting the definition of a word that is key to the opponents' argument, the Politician's argument is flawed. Let's pick "compromise" as our answer.

Answer Explanation:
When the Opponents talk about compromise they mean to negotiate and reach a shared agreement that both sides find acceptable. When the Politician talks about compromising principles she means giving up or not following them. Two different definitions of the word so this is the one that the Critic is pointing out is being used in a misleading manner by the Politician.

Key Takeaway:
When a word is used in a misleading manner it's generally done so by either using it in a non—traditional definition or bringing up the concept twice with different definitions. The latter is particularly common when the repeated word shows up in different viewpoints and it serves as a key point of the rebuttal—there's a good chance that the rebutter is shifting the meaning to make it easier to attack that viewpoint as we saw here.

Incorrect. First, the Politician talks about the same principles both times they're mentioned, so there's no shift. Second, the Critic conditions his response on a specific usage of "principle" so this answer doesn't make sense in that rebuttal.

Incorrect. The Politician discusses the same group when he mentions Opponents, so there's no misleading sense of that word used here.