Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 3 · Question 7

Flawed/Flawed

Methods of Reasoning Questions

Opponent: New wells in an area would only provide less than 1% of what we need, so it’s not worth the risk of drilling.

Proponent: That’s like saying we shouldn’t allow new farms since no farm can feed the whole country, so it’s ridiculous.

This question asks us to describe the Proponent’s reply to the Opponent’s argument. Normally, when we’re describing a rebuttal, we go through a process of evaluating how the response addresses the premises and conclusion of the argument. However, when there are elements that suggest specific methods of reasoning, we should start there, instead.

Here, there are two features that suggest specific types of reasoning. First, the Proponent doesn’t argue just that the Opponent is wrong - she argues that his argument is “ridiculous.” Such an extreme conclusion generally gets reflected in the correct answer, and it’s usually related to a common method of reasoning called the Reduction to the Absurd. In this method of reasoning, the rebuttal shows that using the logic raised in the initial argument in a separate situation leads to a ridiculous conclusion.

And that brings up to the second feature - the Proponent brings up farming as an analogous situation to drilling. Since that aligns with the Reduction to the Absurd method of reasoning that her conclusion suggested, we can feel pretty confident that we’re looking for an answer describing it. Let’s find one saying that the Proponent shows that the Opponent’s argument is ridiculous by applying his logic to an analogous situation.