Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 4 · Question 2

Incorrect. There's nothing here about blame or fixing problems. Instead, this argument focuses on qualifications and checking.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Parallel Reasoning)

Stimulus Summary:
A factory's wastewater disposal was handled by an independent contractor, so they're not to blame and shouldn't be required to clean up.

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem asks us to figure out the principle underlying the scenario in the stimulus, and then find an answer that is guided by the same principle. So step one is to determine that principle, and step two is to analyze the answer choices in light of it.

For the principle, as we would in a Principle (Strengthen) question, we should look at the premises and conclusion and connect the two. Here, the spokesperson concludes that the factory shouldn't have to clean up after themselves because they're not to blame, as they contract the work out. So a principle underlying her argument would be:

If someone else does some work, then the person who didn't do the work is not to blame if it's not done properly and shouldn't have to fix any problems.

With that established, it's time to head to the answer choices and see if we can find one that conforms to that principle.

Answer Explanation:
This answer does deal with blame ("making parents responsible"), so we should dig in. In this case, the author wants to hold the people actually acting badly responsible for their actions instead of holding someone else responsible, thus aligning with the principle from the stimulus. We wouldn't say this is a slam dunk, but it's definitely going to survive a first pass and, after analyzing the others, it ends up being correct.

Key Takeaway:
Earlier questions generally don't derive their difficulty from the answer choices—there aren't generally 2-3 "pretty close" answers that have to be distinguished between. As such, don't second guess an answer that you're not 100% on as long as you've ruled everything else out.

Incorrect. There's nothing about blame in this scenario, so it's incorrect.

Incorrect. This argument is about not letting someone have a say because of potential bias—it has nothing to do with blame.

Incorrect. This scenario is about whether someone's telling the truth, not who's to blame for something.