Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 2 · Question 2

Incorrect. It doesn't matter how it happens, just that it does. Since the sufficient condition is about such courses, as long as they exist, then the argument doesn't care how they work.

Incorrect. This answer is very much the opposite of what the stimulus does in drawing a conclusion that's stronger than the one allowed by the premises. Also, it's not a flaw to reach a weaker conclusion than allowed by the premises—that's a valid argument!

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to fall for a misdirect. It talks about majors, and there could be a Part vs. Whole flaw with courses and majors. However, that jump isn't made in the stimulus, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. A requirement to take a certain course is out of scope. What is relevant is whether that course teaches students how to write once enrolled and thus provide a benefit to them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Course that teaches how to write → Serves student well
Philosophy course-some-Course that teaches students how to write
Therefore - Philosophy course → Serves student well

Answer Anticipation:
This argument chains the two premises together as if they were both conditional, but the second statement is a quantified statement—it talks about some philosophy courses, not all philosophy courses. Since the conclusion is stronger than this premise that it relies on, the argument is flawed.

Let's look for an answer that brings up this flaw. It could either frame it around the some/all split, or bring up something about overlapping sets.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion here is about all philosophy courses. However, the premise is about only some philosophy courses. As such, this answer describes the flawed reasoning of the stimulus and is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Our takeaway for this question is going to be very limited—some answer choices in Errors in Reasoning questions don't actually describe a flaw. Here, (B) is one of those answers. It's not a flaw to conclude something weaker than possible!