Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 1 · Question 18

Incorrect. To justify the conclusion, it would have to be the case that the wrong action being described here is the purchasing of an electric car. However, there's no indication that the purchase of that electric car has fewer negative consequences than the purchase of the gas-powered car. The stimulus brings up a downside of each action, so we can't pick this answer that uses the specific comparative language we see here about the number of negative consequences.

Incorrect. Electric cars are noted as polluting "far less" than gas-powered cars, so this answer establishes that a necessary condition for buying one is met—which very much runs counter to the conclusion.

Incorrect. There are no products listed with no negative consequences associated with their purchase, so this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point (OP): Gas-powered cars pollute too much, so it's wrong to own one.

Advocate: OP owns an electric car, made by a company that also makes gas cars, so their purchase benefited a company that sells a bad product, so it was wrong for the OP to buy the electric car.

Answer Anticipation:
Principle (Strengthen) questions frequently bring up a judgment in the conclusion that it attempts to justify with the details it brings up in describing the specific scenario where the judgment is being made. It's usually most efficient to start with the conclusion and then identify the details that would justify that judgment.

Here, the judgment is that an opposing viewpoint "shouldn't" own a certain electric car. Why not? Because the company also makes gas-powered cars, and the OP believes that it's wrong to own one of those.

So a principle justifying that judgment would be something similar to:
If a company produces a product that you believe is wrong to own, then buying another product they produce (and thus giving them money) is also wrong.

Answer Explanation:
The OP believes that gas-powered cars pollute too much, so the manufacture and sale of them must be wrong. This answer establishes that the OP shouldn't purchase any product made by that company—including the electric car owned by the OP. It therefore justifies the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen (Principle) questions, be sure to start with the conclusion. See what judgment is being drawn, identify the relevant details supporting it from the premise(s), and then find the answer connecting those ideas.

Incorrect. Assuming that the electric car is environmentally sound (instead of just more environmentally sound), this answer wouldn't apply to the company under discussion. And even if the electric cars aren't environmentally sound, since there's no discussion of the company only producing these two types of cars, we can't tell if they also sell other types of products that could be environmentally sound.