Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 2 · Question 18

Incorrect. This answer, rephrased, says the argument confuses a necessary assumption (a statement that must be true) for a sufficient assumption. But that's not what the argument does. This answer would be correct in an argument that said something like, "In order for X to be true, it must be the case that Y. And since Y was recently shown to be true, it follows that X is true, as well."

Incorrect. This answer is in the ballpark in talking about the structure of a phenomenon (nature) and reasoning dealing with it. However, it's slightly off in the second half. The Philosopher assumes that the structure of a phenomenon determines the best possible reasoning to understand it—not the structure of reasoning people actually do about it. As such, she doesn't overlook this possibility.

Incorrect. The deliberately isolated parts of the phenomenon are relevant only in the linear/scientific approach to understanding nature, which isn't relevant to the logic of the argument, as we discussed in the Anticipation.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't state that thinking about nature as separate pieces can't be done, just that it won't yield as good of an understanding of it as a more holistic approach ("best possible").

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Nature is intrinsically interconnected, organic, and nonlinear, so it's best understood using nonlinear, organic, holistic reasoning (rather than linear/scientific reasoning that considers parts in isolation).

Answer Anticipation:
There are two key parts of analyzing this argument to anticipate the correct answer efficiently.

The first is noticing that there's a lot of overlap between how the New Age Philosopher describes nature, and how she describes the approach that will lead to the "best possible" understanding of it. They're both organic, nonlinear, and holistic ("best be understood as a whole"). In other words, the Philosopher believes that the best way to understand nature is through a method that has similar characteristics.

The second is noticing that the conclusion has a huge section that's meant merely as a distraction—everything after the "rather than." Why is that irrelevant to the logic here? Because the Philosopher already stated that the way to get the "best possible" understanding of nature is another method. She didn't say that this method is just "better" than the scientific approach—she used the superlative. This means that no matter what method you write into the second half of the conclusion after the "rather than" has the exact same impact on the logic, since the method already raised is the best—better than all the rest.

Since that section of the conclusion can be replaced with quite literally anything without changing the meaning of the argument, we can safely ignore it. And since we can ignore it, we can look for an answer that lines up with the first consideration we made—the Philosopher assumes that nature is best understood through a method that matches some of its characteristics.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the assumed connection between the characteristics of a phenomenon—nature—and the type of reasoning that will allow the best understanding of it, as we anticipated. It is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
If a conclusion uses superlative language before including a "rather than," you can almost always safely ignore whatever comes after the "rather than." The superlative has already established that something is the best—better than all other alternatives—so any individual alternative mentioned after the "rather than" doesn't add anything new to the logic of the argument.