Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 4 · Question 15

Incorrect. Arthur treats Marta's argument as if it rules out converting this land to walking trails, but he doesn't treat it as if she said that that would be an entirely unproductive use of land. Believing someone ruled out an option doesn't commit you to believing they think that there's no upside to that option.

Incorrect. Arthur believes that Marta ruled out using the land for walking trails, but he doesn't speak to his belief as to what other option he thinks she's in favor of. It could be another recreational area, or it could be a non-recreational use.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), Arthur never discusses an alternative use that he believes Marta believes would be better, so we don't know if he thinks she's arguing against recreational uses in general.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Misinterpretation

Stimulus Summary:
M: The railway land could be used for walking trails, but it may be better used for something else.

A: But it'd be great for walking land, so we shouldn't throw that idea out without more consideration!

Answer Anticipation:
When an argument is designed to rebut another, in general, the conclusion is going to highlight what the point at issue is between the two arguments. Here, Arthur's conclusion is that the proposal to turn the railway land into walking trails shouldn't be thrown out without more consideration. For that to make sense in the context of a rebuttal, he must believe that Marta is recommending dismissing that proposal.

Does she? Nope—she instead argues that the land might have a more productive use. In other words, she wants to look into alternatives, but she'd be on board with turning the railway land into walking trails if there's no better use of that land.

So Arthur is interpreting Marta's argument to be more definitive than it really is. Let's look for an answer stating that he thinks Marta has already dismissed the walking trail idea, when in reality she just wants to look into alternatives before making the call (which is, in essence, Arthur's argument).

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects Arthur's misinterpretation of Marta's argument. Arthur concludes that the conversion to walking trails shouldn't be dismissed without further consideration. That's exactly what Marta is arguing for in saying that there "may" be more productive uses of the land (instead of stating that there is).

Key Takeaway:
When analyzing a rebuttal in a Misinterpretation question, it can sometimes be helpful to forget about the initial viewpoint for a second and think about what argument the rebuttal actually rebuts. That should highlight what the second speaker thinks the first speaker said, and then you can compare that to what she actually said to see the misinterpretation.

Incorrect. If Arthur misinterpreted Marta to be saying this, then he'd rebut her argument by discussing the feasibility of such a conversion. Since he doesn't, this can't be his misinterpretation.