Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 4 · Question 9

Incorrect. The Writer in the stimulus doesn't specify that the next collaboration will be with the same writer as the last collaboration, so this answer is too specific—it's narrower than the conclusion and thus doesn't fully support it.

Incorrect. This answer reverses the logic. The Writer argues that collaborating with another writer will be sufficient to guarantee it sells well, not that it's necessary for that outcome ("only if").

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
W: I never collaborated before. I did on my last book, and the joint effort made it sell well. Therefore, I should do it again so my next book sells well.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally reach a judgment in the conclusion after describing a situation in the premises, and the correct answer establishes a principle connecting those two.

Here, the Writer's conclusion is both a thought on what she "should" do and a prediction on the outcome. She believes that she should collaborate on her next book and that will result in it selling well.

Why does she believe this to be the case? Because she collaborated for the first time on her last book, and that book sold well "as a result" of the collaboration.

So we should look for an answer that connects those two:
If collaboration led to a book selling well, then collaboration in the future will also result in that book selling well

Remember that principle's can be broader than what's required for the argument—here, if the answer says something about anything leading to past success being used to guarantee future success, then it'd be correct, even though that's broader than just talking about collaboration. If it's true for anything, then it's true for collaboration, and thus the argument's conclusion would be more strongly justified.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the premise to the conclusion. The Writer uses the past success of a collaboration to conclude that a future collaboration will guarantee success.

Key Takeaway:
Note the difference between our broader anticipation and the narrower incorrect answer (A). For Principle questions, broader answers can justify a more specific conclusion that falls under its umbrella, but narrower answers can't justify a conclusion that includes ideas outside of it.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of the logic in the stimulus. It talks about situations where a book is unlikely to sell well, so it can't justify a conclusion about when a book is guaranteed to sell well.

Incorrect. This answer limits itself to situations where the writers are good writers, but it's never established in the stimulus that this writer is good.