Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 4 · Question 15

Incorrect. Tricky! However, Stephanie's assertion is that experience isn't enough for someone to be worthy of the public trust. For that to be opposite Ruth's argument, Ruth would need to say that it is sufficient. She, however, states that experience is necessary, not sufficient. Stephanie does simply assert a view opposite what she thinks Ruth is saying, but it's not what she's actually saying, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. Stephanie argues that experience isn't enough for someone to be worthy of the public trust. It could still be beneficial to being a politician who holds that trust, just not by itself enough.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
R: Experience makes you willing to compromise, so experience should be required of politicians.

S: Someone with varied experience isn't necessarily trustworthy, so experience isn't enough for someone to be a politician.

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem asks us to identify an error in Stephanie's reasoning. Her statements are meant as a rebuttal to what Ruth said, so we should start by identifying how her argument calls Ruth's into question.

Here, Stephanie argues that experience isn't enough, as Ruth suggests, to make someone worthy of the public trust. Whenever a speaker specifically attributes a belief to an opposing point, always be sure to see if the initial speaker does make that point.

Here, Stephanie mischaracterizes Ruth's argument! Ruth argues that experience should be required, but that's not the same as saying that it's "enough" to determine someone should be a politician and thus have the public trust. In mischaracterizing the viewpoint that she's attempting to undermine, Stephanie's response is flawed. Let's find an answer reflecting this Straw Man flaw.

Answer Explanation:
Ruth's view is that experience should be a requirement to be a politician. Stephanie, on the other hand, claims that Ruth said it should be sufficient to be a politician. That's a much easier view to attack, since something being "enough" needs to justify the conclusion by itself, whereas a requirement has a much lower bar to establish. As such, this answer correctly describes the Straw Man flaw in Stephanie's response.

Key Takeaway:
While diagramming out these statements isn't useful, noting that they do deal with conditional ideas can highlight the Straw Man/Reversal that Stephanie commits. Ruth talks about requirements; Stephanie about what is "enough." That's necessary/sufficient language, respectively.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the experience in question is either exclusively personal or professional, or a mix. In fact, by talking about diverse/varied experience, it could very well be both! Since the argument doesn't fail depending on which is being talked about, this isn't a flaw.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of flexibility, nor any blanket statements that rule it out as relevant, so this answer doesn't describe a flaw in Stephanie's response.