Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 1 · Question 3

Incorrect. The Anthropologist didn't report the results of the test, so this answer about instances of fraud that involve reporting results is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Anthropologist didn't report the disconfirming test results, so this answer doesn't match up with the details of the situation.

Incorrect. The Chemist charges the Anthropologist with fraud, but this answer leads to a judgment that someone is innocent of that charge.

Incorrect. First, the Anthropologist didn't report a test result. Second, there's no indication that she knew the results were invalid. This answer is incorrect for two reasons!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Background - An Anthropologist thought a medicine had toxin T and tested. The test was negative, and she didn't report this.

Chemist: You received a negative test and didn't report it, so you're guilty of fraud.

Anthropologist: The test was done in an acidic solution, so the results were invalid.

Answer Anticipation:
What a stimulus . . . There's a lot going on. We broke it down into the background, which describes the situation that the Chemist and Anthropologist are arguing over, and then the arguments made by the Chemist and Anthropologist, which will help us look at the pieces that are relevant in each question attached to this stimulus.

For this question, we need to find a principle that strengthens the Chemist's argument. Strengthen (Principle) questions generally have a situation described with a judgment made, and the correct answer justifies that judgment based on the details of the situation.

Here, the Chemist does conclude a judgment, and a harsh one—the Anthropologist is guilty of fraud. There's no definition or principle given, however, that defines when someone is guilty of fraud, so the correct answer will do so with details based on the situation as described.

So what are the relevant details that could lead to a judgment of fraud? The Anthropologist ran a test to confirm a theory, but the test came back in a way that disproved the theory. So we should look for an answer that states failing to report a test that undermines or denies one's own theory is fraud.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that someone who fails to report disconfirming test results has committed fraud. The Anthropologist failed to report such results, so this answer justifies the Chemist's conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Take the time to pull apart the different strands of an argument when it has a lot of pieces—and especially when it has multiple viewpoints! You need to know what facts and premises all the viewpoints are working from in order to be able to efficiently tackle a question.