Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 1 · Question 2

Incorrect. The similarities support the judgment that similarities aren't a coincidence, but they are not themselves the judgment/conclusion.

Incorrect. While the author does contend that the similar designs aren't a coincidence, that doesn't mean she believes ET copied the design from OCF. First, even if OCF announced first, that doesn't mean they're the ones who copied the design (they may have rushed the announcement because they knew they stole it). Second, there's not even a clear sign that there was copying/stealing going on—maybe the two companies are in cahoots!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - Two companies announced almost identical new products three days apart
Companies - It's a coincidence
Author - The similarities are too fundamental to be a coincidence

Answer Anticipation:
In general, opinions are more likely to be conclusions, and facts are more likely to be premises. Here, the argument brings up a weird phenomenon—two similar desks being announced mere days apart (facts). The author lists a long list of similarities between the products (facts). She also states that the similarities are too fundamental to be a coincidence (opinion/judgment). Since the judgment as to whether this was a coincidence or not is an opinion based on the similarities between the products, that's the main point. It's also backed up by disagreeing with the opposing point—the companies who say that it is a coincidence.

Two trends come together to point to the same statement as the main point—the contradiction of an opposing point, and the statement being an opinion/judgment. When multiple trends point to the same answer, you're probably on solid ground.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the author's judgment of the similarities—that they're too fundamental to be a coincidence. In other words, the similarities aren't a coincidence, whatever that entails.

Key Takeaway:
When an author reaches a judgment on something, it's almost always the main point of the argument.

Incorrect. This is a necessary assumption for the companies' conclusion, not the author's, since she believes there wasn't independent creation.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't really get the details of the stimulus correct, as there's no discussion of variations of other products, and only one of the products was at first viewed as unique.