Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 1 · Question 17

Incorrect. This answer is about what the seller is or is not obligated to do, so it can't justify Sharon's (the buyer's) action.

Incorrect. While this answer can feel as if it's just about the seller as answer choice (A) was, it actually establishes something that isn't the responsibility of the buyer (not the buyer"), so it could be correct. And while the rest of the answer is tempting, it's subtly off. This answer isn't about the amount paid being the same as the value of the item, but rather that the amount paid is the same as the amount requested. In other words, it was the shopkeeper's sole responsibility to make sure Sharon paid him the full $10 he asked. Therefore, this answer is wrong.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Sharon knew a vase was worth more than it was priced at, bought it cheap, and resold it. The storekeeper got mad when he saw how much it was worth. Sharon thought she did nothing wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
Lots of details here! Since Strengthen (Principle) questions ask us to justify the judgment made in the conclusion based on the details in the premise, we should start with that judgment. However, there are two conclusions here—Sharon's, and the shopkeeper's.

The question stem asks us to justify Sharon's conclusion, not the shopkeeper's, which is an important distinction. Her judgment is that she did nothing wrong.

With that in mind, we can focus only on the details that would justify that determination. So what would justify Sharon's actions? Well, she paid the shopkeeper what he asked for the vase. The other details don't do much to help Sharon's case (or could even be used against her), so this is what the correct answer will likely focus on.

The correct answer, then, should say something like:
If someone pays the requested amount for an item, even if it's much lower than the item's worth, then they've done nothing wrong.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that Sharon's only obligation was to pay the requested amount. Since the shopkeeper asked $10 and Sharon paid $10, she fulfilled her obligations and thus she didn't do anything wrong. This answer justifies her conclusion, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
More difficult Strengthen (Principle) questions tend to try to bury you in details, making it hard to anticipate the correct answer. To avoid getting confused, start with the judgment in the conclusion. When focused on that, it's usually the case that, of the large number of details, one or two will stand out as serving for a solid basis for that conclusion. Those are the ones most likely to show up in the correct answer, so your anticipation should focus on them.

Incorrect. This answer is about the quality meeting expectations, not about the value of the item in question, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. It's not established that Sharon and the shopkeeper are well acquainted—and, in fact, it notes that the shop is in an area Sharon is visiting, not living—so this answer isn't established as applying to the situation.