Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 4 · Question 1

Incorrect. There's no mention of the government in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the past two years; the studies were done over "that period." This answer is therefore incorrect because there isn't a generalization from a short time period to an overall trend—the argument limits itself to discussing a specific 2-year period.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Studies - The unemployed looking for jobs has decreased recently
Conclusion - The unemployment situation has improved recently

Answer Anticipation:
This argument concludes one explanation for the observed data in a survey—a decrease in the number of unemployed people looking for a job is explained by an improvement in unemployment. In other words, more people have jobs, so there are fewer unemployed people looking for jobs.

Whenever an argument concludes one explanation for an observed phenomenon, you should consider alternatives. Could this data be explained in other ways? Sure! Maybe the people have just given up looking for jobs, despite still being unemployed.

Let's find an answer raising that as a possibility.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up an alternative explanation for the data, thus highlighting a possibility that the argument fails to consider. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion brings up an explanation for an observed phenomenon, you should consider whether there are alternative potential explanations. When there are, the correct answer will generally deal with one of them, with the phrasing depending on the question type.

Incorrect. Government intervention and the pay for these jobs are both out of scope of this argument.

Incorrect. The conclusion is just about the unemployment situation, not the overall economic health of the city, so this answer is out of scope.