Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 2 · Question 9

Incorrect. The argument doesn't reach a conclusion about what should be, so this answer isn't necessary for the argument to work.

Incorrect. The argument concludes that price and quality are not always" aligned. This answer is a stronger version of that statement, so it's not necessary for the argument to work.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Factors affecting wine price — Labor, materials, reputation of vineyard
Conclusion — Expensive wine doesn't equal good wine

Answer Anticipation:
This argument concludes that there's a difference between expensive" wine and "good" wine—while expensive wine can be good, it's not guaranteed to be.

Why not? Because labor, materials, and reputation factor into price. However, who's to say that those don't speak to the quality of the wine? The structure of the argument suggests that the author is really leaning on the reputation being a factor in price to drive a wedge between that cost and the quality, but it could be that reputation is derived from having quality wine!

The argument is assuming that reputation and quality aren't connected, so let's find an answer establishing that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the assumption of the argument—that reputation doesn't always determine quality. If reputation does always indicate quality, then the argument falls apart, since it relies on reputation being a factor in pricing to show that the two aren't always related. Additionally, this answer matches the strength of the conclusion, and Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions generally have answers that are, at most, as strong as the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions generally have correct answers that are at most as strong as the conclusion. This is because, generally, anything stronger isn't necessary to prove the conclusion as a weaker statement would allow it to be properly drawn. When the conclusion is as weak as it is here ("not always" is the same as "sometimes not"), you're looking for an equally weak answer.

Incorrect. First, this answer connects reputation to pricing, not quality. Second, it does so by comparing it to the quality of grapes, and that comparison isn't relevant to the logic of the argument.

Incorrect. This answer attempts to strengthen the argument by showing that, when reputation isn't a factor (because no one knows of a winery), the prices and quality are congruent. And while that may strengthen the argument, it's not necessary for this to be the case. The conclusion is that cost doesn't always equal quality—if that happens for the well—known, expensive brands, then it doesn't matter what's true of any other brands. In fact, if there's a single winery where that's true, it doesn't matter what happens elsewhere.