Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 3 · Question 3

Incorrect. This answer goes further than the Chairperson's argument. She argues to slow down and give the issue more consideration, not refuse to move into any unstable country.

Incorrect. This answer justifies moving into the countries since there is an opportunity to increase profits by doing so, but the Chairperson wants to slow down and consider the move some more.

Incorrect. The Chairperson certainly believes that it's a consideration, but not necessarily the most important one. In fact, if it were the most important one, then the instability in these countries would lead to a recommendation against moving into the countries, not a recommendation to consider it more before making a decision.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Recommendation — We shouldn't expand into two foreign countries without further consideration
Why? — The countries aren't politically stable

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally make a judgment in the conclusion based on a description of a situation, and the correct answer will connect some (or all) of those details to the judgment.

The conclusion/judgment here takes the form of a recommendation—the board shouldn't take a certain action without further consideration. Why not? Because the action involves moving into countries that aren't politically stable. Note that the "Although" here presents a reason to move into the country so it's likely to show up only in incorrect answers.

Therefore we're looking for an answer that uses political instability as a reason to ensure that any decision to move into that country is deeply analyzed.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that political instability in a country is sufficient to make a corporation slow down and consider a move into that country more deeply ("be cautious"). It doesn't go too far as (A) does and so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
First always keep your eyes on the conclusion/judgment/recommendation in a Strengthen (Principle) question—it'll help you decide what details in the premises are likely to be used to support that conclusion. Second when details are included that cut against that conclusion (here introduced by "Although . . . ") those are unlikely to be included in the correct answer as they don't serve to justify that conclusion.

Incorrect. The Chairperson doesn't want to discount those incentives; she wants to ensure that the downside of moving into a politically unstable country is balanced against the profits and incentives.