Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 12

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
not Good food → not Good meal
not Good soil → not Good food
not Good farming → not Good soil
not Culture placing value on natural resources → not Good farming

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus presents a whole lot of conditional relationships! We can tell this because it uses words such as "cannot" and "without" which convey certainty in the relationships. However, it unfortunately does it backwards, starting with the end of the chain and moving forward to the beginning.

Therefore, we need to take the time to map it out, resulting in a complete chain that states (and the contrapositive):
not Culture placing value on natural resources → not Good farming → not Good soil → not Good food → not Good meal

Good meal → Good food → Good soil → Good farming → Culture placing value on natural resources

One note before we move on—there is a bit of a jump in some of these, in that it talked about good/bad, and we related them all to Good or not Good. There is technically a middle ground—mediocre meals/food/soil. This is question #12, so such ambiguities are much less likely to show up here, but if multiple answers look to follow the chain, we should circle back to see which one matches up with the "good"s/"bad"s from the stimulus.

Answer Explanation:
The contrapositive of the chain brings up many necessary conditions for a good meal. These include good soil, which is a natural condition, and a culture that places value on the maintenance of natural resources, which is a cultural condition. As such, this answer is supported by the stimulus and is thus the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When concepts exist on a spectrum (e.g., good/bad, delicious/disgusting, hot/cold), you need to consider the middle ground. However, in earlier Must Be True questions, the subtleties of this—especially in an argument that seems to be chaining ideas together—is unlikely to test this, so don't get so wrapped up in those ideas that you slow yourself down. You can always hop back in and fully consider them if it turns out to be relevant to the answer choices.

Incorrect. The maintenance of natural resources isn't a concept raised in the stimulus. Rather, it discusses a culture that places value on the maintenance of natural resources, which doesn't speak to whether that maintenance is successful!

Incorrect. "Is a prerequisite for" is another way of saying "is necessary for." However, the stimulus establishes maintaining good soil as a sufficient condition for good farming, so this answer has a slight term shift and a reversal.

Incorrect. First, the stimulus discusses a specific cultural value, not generally having good cultural values. Second, the argument establishes having those values as a necessary condition, not a sufficient one as this answer states. Third, the argument discusses having good meals—that's not the same as having a good cuisine.

Incorrect. The argument establishes that bad farming and bad soil are both sufficient to guarantee bad food, but there are two issues with this answer. First, it's causal ("because of"), and conditional statements aren't causal. Second, sufficient conditions are only one potential avenue to a given result—there could be other things that cause bad food (e.g., bad storage, or bad preparation), while this answer treats soil and farming as the only potential causes of it.