Logical reasoning PrepTest 110 · Section 3 · Question 16

Incorrect. This answer establishes a necessary condition for an act to be morally wrong ("morally wrong . . . only if") so it's incorrect. The principle needs to have a sufficient condition for the judgment in the conclusion.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the contractor can't make restitution, just that she doesn't think she should have to based on the contract.

Incorrect. The company didn't induce the contractor to perform subpar work, which is what the company is seeking restitution for.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer establishes a necessary condition ("morally wrong . . . only if") for an action to be morally wrong so it can't justify the conclusion here.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Situation — Contractor paid damages for a poorly done job despite the contract saying they wouldn't be held liable
Judgment — The company was morally wrong to seek damages

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions will generally make a judgment in the conclusion based on a situation described in the premises. The correct answer connects these concepts, establishing that the details in the situation justify that judgment.

Here, the conclusion is that a company acted in a "morally wrong" manner so the principle needs to establish that their actions were morally wrong. And what were those actions? They went back on a contract they agreed to in order to sue someone for damages that they had waived.

So the answer should connect those details:
It is morally wrong to go back on a contract you agreed to.

A quick note on two categories of incorrect answers. First the conclusion isn't a judgment on the contractor's actions so any answer discussing what she did will be incorrect. Second answers that establish a necessary condition for an act to be morally wrong is incorrect—since the conclusion is that the act was morally wrong we need a principle with a sufficient condition to guarantee that judgment to justify that conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
The contract said that the company wouldn't seek restitution for inadequate performance so there was a promise made to forgo such restitution. This answer then justifies the conclusion that the company was morally wrong to seek restitution.

Key Takeaway:
Two takeaways here. First when there are multiple actors in a Strengthen (Principle) question identify which one the conclusion's judgment applies to and make sure the answer discusses that party's action. Second be sure that you pick an answer that establishes a sufficient condition for reaching the conclusion not a necessary condition. Knowing to look for this is usually good for eliminating 2—3 answers!