Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 4 · Question 3

Incorrect. Mary doesn't question that claim—she shows that it only applies in certain situations, but she agrees that it does sometimes apply.

Incorrect. Mary doesn't discuss the motives behind what the critics argue.

Incorrect. If anything, Tom is the one defending a practice (overturning precedent), whereas Mary shows that the practice can be harmful. Additionally, Mary doesn't cite evidence showing that it's usually done only after deliberation—she asserts that they overturned outdated precedent. That could have been done after almost no deliberation!

Incorrect. She doesn't highlight an assumption of Tom's argument. Rather, she shows that his premise is more limited than he treats it as.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

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M: That's true, but only when precedent was outdated.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:
Mary's argument rebuts Tom's, and so in this Methods of Reasoning question, we should try to describe how she does so. That involves seeing if the rebuttal uses the same or different premises, and whether it reaches the opposite conclusion or just questions the validity of the opposing point.

Here, Mary does agree with one of Tom's premises—the high court has overturned precedent before. However, she then goes on to qualify that, highlighting a difference between overturning outdated rulings and overturning more recent rulings. The former, she argues, doesn't harm the legal system—which aligns with Tom's view. The latter, however, does, and the recent decisions fall into that category. With that in mind, she reaches the opposite conclusion of Tom—these decisions do harm the legal system.

So Mary shows that Tom's premise doesn't apply to all cases, and the ones in question fall into the category where it doesn't apply, thus leading to the opposite conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights Mary's method of rebuttal—agreeing that Tom's premise applies in some cases, but not others, and the cases in question are the ones where it doesn't apply. Tom fails to take this difference into account, making his conclusion wrong.

Key Takeaway:
When a Methods of Reasoning question asks you to describe a rebuttal, focus on whether the rebuttal agrees or disagrees with the premises, and whether it reaches the opposite conclusion or a conclusion that the opposing point is invalid. Going through that process should allow you to come up with a pretty solid anticipation.