Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 3 · Question 3

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Valid

Question Type:
Must Be True (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
J: I can't help that my vision is bad, and that's what caused the accident, so I'm not responsible!

M: You know your vision is bad

Person knows action risks certain consequences and voluntarily takes action → Responsible for those consequences
So you're responsible for the accident

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot to this stimulus, but we're told that we're to look for an answer that justifies one of the answers. That's a Must Be True (Principle) question stem, and Michiko's principle is that second sentence. She doesn't refer back to earlier ideas at all, so we can essentially ignore the entire rest of the stimulus and just map out that conditional principle.

It uses a straightforward conditional indicator word ("if") even if it is halfway through the sentence. That's our sufficient condition so the principle is that anyone who knows that their actions risk certain consequences and chooses to act is responsible for the foreseeable ("if they know") consequences. Let's find an answer that lines up with that principle.

Answer Explanation:
Colleen knew that another trip to the Eiffel Tower risked her missing her flight but she voluntarily did it anyway. Since she voluntarily performed an action that she knew could lead to certain consequences and then she suffered those consequences the principle in the stimulus justifies the logic here. This is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Know how each of the question types works! Here knowing that a Must Be True (Principle) question is asking you to apply a provided principle to the answer choices would allow you to skip over much of the stimulus and focus just on the relevant portion which would save a lot of time.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that Colleen "did not know" that her action would have a certain consequence so it doesn't meet the sufficient condition of the principle in the stimulus.

Incorrect. There's no indication that Colleen was aware of this manual's publication or the information within, so there's no indication that she knew of the consequences. Also, this is more about failing to take action than taking action, so it's a bit of a mismatch in that regard, as well.

Incorrect. Colleen didn't take an action in this situation, so the principle doesn't apply since it's about voluntarily taking an action.

Incorrect. The principle provides a sufficient condition for someone being responsible for the consequences of their actions, so it can't justify reaching the conclusion that someone isn't responsible for those consequences. Believing that it can justify this conclusion is an illegal negation of the principle.