Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 4 · Question 2

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
T: Critics - Recent high court decisions show the need to stick to precedent to avoid chaos.
But high courts often ignore precedent without harm to the legal system, so they're wrong.

M: That's true, but only when precedent was outdated. The recent rulings overturned recent decisions, which hurts legal stability.

Answer Anticipation:
In this Point at Issue question, Mary's response rebuts Tom's, but she also brings up a point that they both agree on. When that's the case, it's likely best to work through the rebuttal to see where the alignment is, and what the points at issue are.

Here, Mary starts with an agreed-upon fact—high courts have repudiated precedents in the past. However, she then pivots ("but") to the disagreement—they did so only for outdated rulings. The recent decisions, however, were also recent.

Both of Mary's points are meant to rebut Tom's argument, but does he have an opinion on them? He does not. He doesn't talk about the recency or outdated nature of any decisions. So we still lack a point at issue!

Mary then reaches a statement that establishes a principle—overturning recent rulings undermines the law. This stands in contrast to Tom's argument that critics of the recent rulings are wrong to say that they'll lead to legal chaos, so we finally have our point at issue.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the difference of opinion towards the recent high court decisions. Tom believes that they won't lead to legal chaos, whereas Mary believes that they will diminish the law. So Tom thinks that they won't harm the legal system, whereas Mary believes they will.

Key Takeaway:
When the second speaker in a Point at Issue question rebuts the first speaker, it's generally best to work through her argument and identify points at issue between them. Since the first speaker isn't responding to the second, the second speaker is more likely to highlight a point at issue.

Incorrect. Only Tom discusses political motivations, so this answer is out of scope of Mary's argument.

Incorrect. Mary doesn't address the critics at all, so this answer is out of scope of her argument.

Incorrect. Tom doesn't discuss outdated decisions, and even Mary falls short of saying that such decisions "need" to be overturned.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses decisions that appear progressive, so this answer is out of scope.