Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 2 · Question 20

Incorrect. This answer brings up an illegal reversal—confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient one—which isn't present in the stimulus. Additionally, this answer says that the argument established a necessary condition for having high-tech equipment, but the premise doesn't discuss such equipment at all.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
High productivity requires adequate training, so it doesn't require high-tech equipment.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument establishes a definition of productivity, but that ends up being irrelevant to the flawed logic.

In the argument, a premise establishes that one thing is required for high productivity—adequate worker training. From this, it concludes that high-tech equipment isn't required.

But that assumes that only one thing can be required for any given outcome. That's simply not true. PB&J sandwiches require peanut butter, jelly, and bread. Buying a TV requires money and someone willing to sell it. In assuming that anything can only have a single necessary condition, this argument is flawed, so we should look for an answer explaining that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up one possible way that high-tech equipment could be necessary for high productivity—it's a requirement for another established necessary condition (adequate training). This would establish high-tech equipment as a necessary condition for high productivity, so this answer highlights a possibility that the argument overlooks and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
Errors in Reasoning questions frequently feature conditional logic flaws. The answer choices for such questions can be hard to parse and sound similar. Be sure to spend time reviewing these so that you can quickly and accurately understand what type of flaw a given answer is describing, as these answers tend to repeat!

Incorrect. The argument reaches a conclusion about what is necessary for high productivity, not whether it's desirable or should be pursued.

Incorrect. First, the argument is about training, not education, which might be a slight shift (training implies teaching a task; education can be broader than that). That said, the argument establishes training as a necessary condition, and it doesn't conclude that anyone who receives such training will see an increase in productivity, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The argument concludes that high-tech equipment isn't necessary for productivity, but that doesn't mean it can't contribute to it. There are plenty of things that help with something without being necessary for it—it's certainly easier to mash potatoes with a blender, but you can do it with a rock if need be!