Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 4 · Question 14

Incorrect. We know that Anderson was a "famous" contralto, so she's presumably successful. As such, this answer would lead to the conclusion that she did take success for granted, contradicting the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Anderson - Struggled early in life
Struggled early in life → Keep good perspective on world
Conclusion - Anderson didn't take success for granted

Answer Anticipation:
We can tell the opening line is the conclusion because it's followed with a statement introduced by, "We know this because . . . " showing that that statement backs the opening line up. That conclusion states that someone didn't take success for granted.

Is there a premise that allows us to conclude someone didn't take success for granted? There is not—that's a new concept introduced in the conclusion, so something from the stimulus will need to be connected to it to justify this conclusion.

The other "concept" from the conclusion is Marian Anderson, and we do learn something about her in the premises. There, it's established that they struggled early in life. The other premise establishes that anyone who struggled early in life can keep a good perspective on the world, so we can conclude that MA kept a good perspective on the world.

But at that point, we're out of premises. So we need to connect that to the new concept in the conclusion (or find the contrapositive, which would be equally correct):
Keep good perspective on world → ~Take success for granted
Take success for granted → ~Keep good perspective on world

Answer Explanation:
Keep good perspective on world → ~Take success for granted. This answer matches our anticipation. We know that MA struggled early in life, which guarantees she kept a good perspective on the world. If this answer is added to the argument, we can then say that she didn't take success for granted, justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When conditional logic is involved in a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question, the correct answer is often conditional, connecting the end of a chain to a new concept in the conclusion. When this happens, the direction matters—what's sufficient and what's necessary—and an answer that's wrong because it's a reversal of the right answer will likely be provided, so be careful!

Incorrect. This answer is the reversal of the conditional from the premise, so it doesn't add anything to the argument since that conditional already worked together with the other premise.

Incorrect. This answer has ~Take success for granted as a sufficient condition, so it won't allow a conclusion to be drawn that someone doesn't take success for granted. Conditionals allow us to conclude the necessary condition based on establishing the sufficient condition in the premises, and so this answer would allow a conclusion to be reached that someone did take success for granted (the contrapositive).

Incorrect. ~Take success for granted → Keep good perspective on world. This answer is the reversal of the answer we're looking for.50437,Incorrect. The statement in question is set up to rebut the horror-movie image, which isn't necessarily a fear of the Ethicists—the Geneticist notes that many of their fears are reasonable!