Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 4 · Question 15

Incorrect. The argument establishes attendance at the recent exhibit not being low as a necessary condition for the museum remaining open (the contrapositive of the conditional premise). However, it doesn't then treat the attendance not being low as sufficient for the museum to remain open—that would involve the argument establishing the attendance as a premise, and concluding that the museum will therefore remain open. Instead, it concludes that the local news coverage was necessary for the museum to stay open.

Incorrect. The premises are all about this exhibit, not prior exhibits, and there's no comparative language about the attendance for this exhibit versus earlier ones. As such, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument presumes that the local coverage had some impact on attendance, but that doesn't assume that "most" people who saw the coverage attended, just that many did.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Local media covered the recent museum exhibit, increasing attendance
Attendance at exhibit low → Museum bankrupt and closed
Therefore - not Local media coverage → Museum closed

Answer Anticipation:
The second statement in this argument is clearly conditional ("If . . . "), but the conclusion isn't, so let's talk through that part first.

The conclusion brings up a guaranteed outcome based on a certain condition—the very definition of a conditional statement. Without the news coverage, the museum would have closed, according to the conclusion. And without is a conditional word that means the same as unless, so we can treat it as "if not." That's how we arrived at the conclusion in our stimulus. (Phrases like "had it not been for" are conditional in nature, establishing a relationship as we've outlined here.)

With that said, we can see that the necessary condition of the premise and conclusion line up, so we don't need to take a contrapositive here. However, the sufficient condition of the premise and conclusion don't line up, so the assumption of the argument is in the connection there—between not Local media coverage and Attendance at exhibit low:
not Local media coverage → Attendance at exhibit low

The stimulus does establish that the local media coverage "seems to have contributed" to the solid attendance. However, first, "seems to" isn't the same as it did, so there's a jump there. And second, contributing to record-breaking attendance doesn't mean that a lack of coverage would have resulted in low attendance—it might just have been lower.

Let's find an answer reflecting this jump.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the assumption in the conditional logic. The argument concludes that the local media coverage was necessary for the museum staying open because a certain level of attendance was necessary for it to keep the doors open. However, even though the coverage did increase attendance, that doesn't guarantee that the attendance would have been low without it—the exhibit itself may have attracted a large enough audience to keep the museum open, and the local coverage just added in more of a cushion! This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Language such as "without" and "had it not been for" is establishing a conditional relationship, discussing necessary conditions for something to happen.

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, but there's no premise establishing that the local media was necessary for the museum to stay open, so this flaw isn't present.