Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 2 · Question 25

Incorrect. Very tempting! However, the argument doesn't assume that fads never indicate genuine acceptance—just that this brief fad didn't indicate true acceptance. This answer's scope is too broad, and so we can rule it out.

Incorrect. The argument is assuming that the reappearance did indicate genuine acceptance of the bicycle, thus justifying the conclusion that values must have changed to explain the different reception. The lead—in to this answer—that the argument fails to recognize" something that it assumes is true—invalidates this answer. Arguments fail to recognize possibilities that would hurt the argument; they fail to establish assumptions.

Incorrect. Since that's offered as background/a premise, it doesn't need to be supported.

Incorrect. The question and conclusion are directly related—the author believes that a change in values explains the why? of the disappearance and reappearance of the bicycle.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
1817 — The first bicycle is invented, and a brief fad ensues
Approx. 1817—1860s — Bicycles disappear
1860s — Bicycles reappear
Principle — New tech accepted → Coheres with values of a society
Therefore — Values must have changed between 1817 and the 1860s

Answer Anticipation:
This answer presents a phenomenon—the bicycle fading into obscurity after its first launch before reappearing—and then asks for an explanation. It then concludes an explanation—values changed between when the bicycle was first introduced in 1817 and when it reappeared in the 1860s.

Why are values relevant? Because of a principle that the argument establishes—new technology (e.g., bicycles) is only accepted when it coheres with society's values.

However, that establishes a necessary condition for the acceptance of a new technology. While it does mean that a new technology that doesn't cohere with societal values won't be accepted, it doesn't establish that not being accepted guarantees there's a clash with values. It could be that bicycles aligned with the values of society, but there's something else that caused it to fail.

As with many answers that conclude an explanation for a phenomenon, this one ignores alternative explanations. While it does establish a principle that's related to the conclusion, it's not one that establishes the conclusion, and so we should look for answers that bring up the possibility that the bike failed during that first launch for reasons unrelated to the values of society.

Answer Explanation:
The argument proposes an explanation for a phenomenon, which will usually be flawed because the argument ignores other potential explanations. Here, a principle is provided that connects the phenomenon and explanation, but it doesn't establish that it's the only explanation. Therefore, this argument is ignoring other potential explanations for that initial failure of the bicycle (sure, there was a brief fad, but then it disappeared, so there was an initial failure to catch on), and so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
An argument that concludes an explanation for a given phenomenon is likely flawed in that it ignores other potential explanations.