Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 3 · Question 10

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Cars resulted in suburbs and malls with large parking lots so if cars hadn't been adopted modern geography would be different.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a key word that shows up in the conclusion here that hints at potential flaws—"result." If one thing "results" from another that means there's a causal relationship between the two. However unlike most arguments that discuss cause/effect this one has a weird conclusion that inverts a premise.

In that premise it's established that the adoption of the personal automobile resulted in suburbs and large parking lots—another causal relationship. And causal relationships can support causal conclusions.

However in this case the conclusion doesn't build off of the premise—it negates it. It talks about a world where the cause from the premises didn't happen concluding that the effect wouldn't have followed. And while removing a cause could result in the effect not appearing there could also be other causes that would have resulted in the same thing. This argument in assuming that the cause disappearing would also cause the effect to never come to pass is ignoring those other potential causes so we should look for an answer that brings that up.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the assumption of the argument—that removing the cause of the current geography would result in different geography. It's possible that another trend would have resulted in the same geography—suburbs malls large parking lots and all—regardless of the adoption of personal cars.

Key Takeaway:
When one thing "result[s]" from another a causal relationship is established. And while removing the cause could result in a decrease in the effect it also might not if there are other potential causes.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss other facets of modern life, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. "[S]ome effect" would need to be tied into the specific effects attributed to the adoption of the car to be in scope here. Since this answer doesn't establish that these effects are related to geography this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer, rephrased, says that the argument assumes you can have a mall without a parking lot, even in a world with cars. If that's the case, then it's not the car that drove that aspect of suburban geography, which contradicts the argument.

Incorrect. The argument is about the effects of the adoption of the car, and what would have happened if it hadn't been adopted. As such, what people want is out of scope.