Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't limit the study to children with ADD, and all children could release adrenaline in response to sugar with it only exacerbating ADD in the children . . . who have ADD.

Incorrect. The argument relies on adrenaline making ADD worse, not causing it in the first place.

Incorrect. While the causal relationship between sugar and making ADD worse does require it to be true that not having sugar should improve ADD, it doesn't require that to be the "most effective" way to treat it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Study - Soon after eating sugar, kids produce a lot of adrenaline
Conclusion - Sugar can make ADD worse

Answer Anticipation:
While normally we'd consider a sampling flaw and a correlation/causation flaw in an argument featuring a study, this Strengthen with Necessary Premise question starts off with the conclusion and brings up a term that's never mentioned again—ADD. The argument concludes that sugar can make ADD worse. That is a causal statement, but the fact that ADD isn't mentioned in the premises is the big red flag here, and we should look to see what concept the author believes is leading to ADD.

Here, since sugar is noted as something that makes ADD worse, we should look to see what effect sugar is established as having. In the study that the argument relies on, it's noted that consuming sugar is followed by a rush of adrenaline. That rush of adrenaline, however, isn't tied into ADD at all, so the correct answer will likely highlight a connection between adrenaline and ADD getting worse.

Answer Explanation:
The study established that sugar results in an adrenaline rush. The argument concludes that this means sugar makes ADD worse. For that argument to hold, it must be the case that adrenaline makes ADD worse. If it doesn't, then the study isn't applicable to the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When a new concept shows up in a Strengthen with Necessary Premise conclusion, the correct answer will almost certainly address it and connect it to a concept in the premises.

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that the adrenaline rush is "especially noticeable" when sugar isn't consumed with food other than candy, leaving open the possibility that it is still noticeable in these cases, just not as noticeable as with candy.