Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 3 · Question 21

Incorrect. This answer is a broader version of the conditional chain already established, so it doesn't add much to the argument.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of the second conditional. If the issue with the argument were that it had an illegal negation there, this would be correct, but that's not the issue.

Incorrect. This answer is a broader version of the second conditional, but since the argument is about the fitness consultants from the premises, there was no shift to a separate or broader group, and so this answer doesn't add anything to the argument.

Incorrect. The argument is about people who do smoke, so this answer that establishes "not smoke" as a sufficient condition doesn't apply.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
not Care about own health → not Care about clients' health
not Care about clients' health → not Help clients become healthier
Therefore - Fitness consultants who smoke not Help clients become healthier

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions frequently rely on conditional logic, and when they do, they generally fall into one of two patterns. Either they present several conditionals that chain together, but there's a missing link to make the conclusion valid. Or they present a conditional that they attempt to apply to a specific situation. Here, despite there being two conditional statements, those statements are applied to a specific case—that of fitness consultants who smoke.

When these arguments apply conditionals to a specific case, they're usually invalid in not establishing that the sufficient condition is met by the specific case. To see if that's the case here, let's start by combining the conditionals and getting them to line up with the conclusion. Here, the conclusion already lines up with the conditional (not Help clients become healthier), so we don't need to take contrapositives:
not care about own health → not Care about clients' health → not Help clients become healthier

So to reach the conclusion that fitness consultants who smoke can't help their clients become healthier, it would need to be established that they don't care about their own health, thus meeting the sufficient condition of the chain that ends in that conclusion. However, while you may believe that people who smoke don't care about their own health, that's not established by the stimulus. It could be that they do care about their own health and know smoking is bad, but they're addicted and can't stop themselves. Let's find an answer establishing that fitness consultants who smoke can't care about their own health.

Answer Explanation:
Care about own health → not Smoke. So: Smoke → not Care about own health. This answer establishes that fitness consultants who smoke don't care about their own health, thus meeting the sufficient condition of the chain and allowing the conclusion to be properly drawn. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions frequently involve conditional logic. When they do, they're usually flawed in that they're missing a link in a chain, or they fail to establish that the specific scenario the conditional is being applied to meets the sufficient condition. A good way to tell which one you're in? If the conclusion is conditional, you're probably missing a link.