Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 1 · Question 7

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Terry: I submitted an insurance claim 3 times and still haven't received a settlement, so the company must be deliberately refusing to pay.

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's talk about this question stem. It's clearly a Principle question, but we're not used to looking for a principle that a situation violates. Since the question stem asks about Terry's "reasoning," we know that she makes an argument, and a principle that is violated by her argument would, if true, weaken that argument. Ergo, we're going to treat this as a Weaken (Principle) question. If you viewed this as a Cannot Be True (Principle) question instead, you'd probably end up in the same place, so no worries.

Terry's conclusion here makes a judgment about the insurance company that she believes explains their actions—they're deliberately not paying out the insurance claim.

However, that's only one potential explanation. There are certainly others. The claim could have been lost in the mail, or the company could take longer than Terry has waited to pay out a settlement. Even Terry brings up a possibility—the firm could be repeatedly making mistakes as to dealing with the claim.

In reaching one judgment/explanation for the actions instead of allowing for others—and not ruling those others out—Terry's argument is flawed. And thus it's likely that the principle her argument violates will deal with alternative explanations for the failure of the insurance company to pay out claims.

Answer Explanation:
The failure of the insurance company to pay out the claim may very well be the result of incompetence—they could keep losing, misplacing, misfiling, or deleting Terry's claim by accident. Since that's possible, this principle justifies concluding that consumers shouldn't attribute the company's actions (or lack of action) to dishonesty. Since Terry concludes that they're "deliberately avoiding paying up," she's concluding that they're acting dishonestly, and this answer is therefore violated by Terry's reasoning, making it correct.

Key Takeaway:
While it's important to spend time on the question stem so you can use it to determine your strategy in tackling the question, don't get so wrapped up in a non-traditional stem that you lose momentum! If you have a general idea of what you're looking for and how you're going to get there, then it doesn't matter if you're precise with your categorization.

Incorrect. Terry's argument reaches a conclusion explaining the insurance company's actions—it's not about keeping oneself informed of corporate behavior. This answer is out of scope and thus can't be violated by the situation in the stimulus.

Incorrect. Terry is relying on her experiences in filing a claim, so this answer isn't violated by her example.

Incorrect. Terry's argument is about the repeated nature of the action, not mitigating circumstances, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is about what corporations ought to do, not what's motivating the actions here, so it's out of scope and thus can't be violated.