Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 1 · Question 25

Incorrect. The argument might assume it's impossible to make smaller cars safer without decreasing their fuel efficiency, but it doesn't assume that it's impossible to make them safer.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
More fuel efficient cars are better for the environment.
Recommendation — Make smaller/more fuel efficient cars to save the planet!
Problem with that — Smaller cars are more dangerous when in an accident, and it's not worth it to save the planet.
Conclusion—Don't make more fuel efficient cars.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here throws out a goal—making a more fuel efficient car. Why? Because one way to achieve it—making cars smaller—would result in unacceptable consequences.

However, that's a reason not to make smaller cars—it's not a reason to stop trying to make more fuel efficient cars! Any answer that highlights that the true goal here—making cars more fuel efficient—might be possible without the negative consequences of smaller cars will highlight the flaw in the reasoning here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer abstractly describes the flaw in the argument. It concludes, on the basis that one means (making smaller cars) to an end (make cars more fuel efficient) is unacceptable (not worth the added risk"), that the end (fuel efficient cars) should not be pursued.

Key Takeaway:
When Errors in Reasoning questions feature abstract answers, try to match up the abstract terms with concrete ones from the argument. First, this will let you eliminate answers when you can't match the elements up. Second, this will make it a lot easier to analyze the answers that do have matching concepts!

Incorrect. There's a key premise here that isn't factual in nature—the principle that greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives. Since this answer doesn't correctly describe the argument, we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument. Since the conclusion is about what should be done but no premises state the same thing, the argument can't be circular.

Incorrect. This answer would be correct if the argument showed that increasing fuel efficiency was a bad idea, and thus we should give up on addressing air pollution. Since the conclusion is limited to discussing fuel efficiency, however, this answer is incorrect.