Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't discuss any vote, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is too weak ("usually") to support a conclusion that doesn't have the same wiggle room. This answer also doesn't connect to the first statement just the second so it can't be establishing two concepts as contradictory.

Incorrect. This answer does at least pay lip service to both claims by the political party. However, it aligns with their view, not the Editorial's. The Editorial believes that the statements are contradictory, not that they're compatible, as this answer suggests.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Political Party — Spending more on education is a worthy goal
Same Political Party — The government shouldn't spend more on education
Conclusion — That political party is inconsistent

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is that two statements made by a political party are inconsistent—in other words, they can't both be true. Since this is a flaw—based question, it must be the case that the two statements contradicting each other relies on an assumption. As such, even if you think that the statements do contradict each other, you should dig into the particular language to see what different concepts are brought up. Sometimes, you can find the gap even if you don't see how it's a gap!

Here, the two statements are both about increasing spending on education. In one statement, the party says that it's a worthy goal; in another, the party says that the government shouldn't spend more on education. Even if they sound the same to you, you should expect the answer to establish these two ideas as inconsistent/contradictory:
It is inconsistent to believe that you shouldn't do something to achieve a worthy goal.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that believing a worthy goal shouldn't be worked towards is an inconsistent view, which is the assumption of the argument. If it is consistent to believe that a goal that is worthy shouldn't be acted on, then the argument falls apart as there's no inconsistency in the political party's claims.

Key Takeaway:
Some assumptions seem rather reasonable, but any light between two concepts leaves a gap in the argument. If you can line up the pieces, you can sometimes find the gap even if you don't fully understand why it is a gap.

Incorrect. The conclusion is that the political party's views are inconsistent, so this answer cuts against that.