Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 3 · Question 18

Incorrect. The conclusion is that the specific actions in this case are inconsistent, so the argument doesn't generalize.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Local citizen — The government aroused the public interest, but now they say that letting us watch the trial isn't in the public interest, so their actions are inconsistent.

Answer Anticipation:
Remember that the scope of the argument is defined by the conclusion—that's what the argument is trying to prove, and just that. We'll circle back to this in a second.

Here, the question stem asks us to find an error in the local citizen's argument. Her conclusion is that the government's actions are inconsistent—so let's find the premises she uses to support that. And we can ignore the many extraneous details that aren't related to inconsistency, because they're out of scope of the conclusion.

So in that mishmash of claims from the Citizen, what is inconsistent? Well, the only thing that appears to contradict itself in any way is her claims about the public interest. She says that, as a part of the pre—trial process, they aroused the public interest. Now, the judge is saying allowing spectators in wouldn't serve the public interest. That's where the accusation of inconsistency must come from.

Since this is an Errors in Reasoning question, there must be a flaw in that—and there is a common flaw when an argument uses a key phrase twice. That is ambiguous word usage—and here, there are two definitions of public interest." One has to do with what the public is interested in—what they want to know more about. The other is what is best for the public—what will serve them best. While the public may be interested in the trial, it's not in the public interest to turn justice into a spectator sport.

Since the argument shifts between definitions for a key term, we should look for an answer that says that!

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the error in the argument's reasoning—there are two definitions of a key term ("public interest") used.

Key Takeaway:
The scope of an argument is defined by the conclusion. Starting there with your analysis can make it a lot easier to find the relevant premises.

Also, when a key term is repeated, there's a good chance that the argument is shifting the meaning, so you should check for that flaw.

Incorrect. Even if the judge didn't make those pleas, she's still a representative of the government, and so the Citizen isn't relying on her" being the one to make those pleas, but rather "they" (the government).

Incorrect. While the tone and phrasing may be somewhat overwrought, the statements themselves aren't sensationalistic. They just talk about the process that got us to this point—they asked for help/tips, got the public interested, and then cut them out of the trial. That's all pretty factual.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't about whether the action in question is justified, but rather about whether the actions were inconsistent, so this answer is out of scope.