Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 4 · Question 25

Incorrect. It's unclear what the practical elements of the argument are that stand apart from the theoretical. "Credit" is itself pretty theoretical!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Background - Inventors invent things, and they deserve the credit they get
Issue - Engineers get too little credit for inventions
Concession/Exception - Sometimes, the engineer and inventor are the same person
Pivot - Usually, they're not, and the engineer is required to make the invention work
Recommendation - Engineers should get credit for their inventions

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is actually pretty complex overall for a last question in the section, but luckily we don't need to understand the entire argument—just the role of a specific statement in it.

Absent anything else going on in this question, the statement that the stem asks about starts with, Although, highlighting it as some type of concession or exception the author is making that doesn't fully line up with her conclusion.

Here, her argument is about whether engineers get enough credit for implementing the ideas of inventors; it's "[u]nquestionabl[e]" that inventors deserve credit. The statement in question is about situations where the engineer and inventor are the same person. In this case, it obviously can't be true that the engineer isn't receiving enough credit because they're also the inventor, who unquestionably is deserving of credit. Therefore, the exception here is a situation where the complaint that the author is addressing doesn't apply.

Let's find an answer highlighting that!

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the role of the statement in question. Generally, the author believes that engineers should get more credit for implementing an inventor's invention. However, in the case where the engineer and inventor are the same people, then the individual is already "unquestionably" deserving of credit, and there's no problem.

Key Takeaway:
Language such as although highlights some type of concession or exception that the author is pointing out. Figuring out the role of that statement is key in an Argument Structure question—and figuring out if it's an exception or concession (or some other type of statement) is a great first step.

Incorrect. It doesn't support an earlier statement (or any statement), as it carves out situations where the rest of the argument doesn't apply.

Incorrect. The distinction in question is between an inventor and an engineer. However, just because at times they're the same person doesn't mean that it's not clear who fills which role! It could be clear who is who when they're separate, and even when it's the same person, it could be easy to tell when they're acting as an inventor and when they're acting as an engineer.

Incorrect. The "solution" is to give engineers more credit (though that's . . . lacking in detail). The statement in question doesn't suggest another approach.