Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 4 · Question 22

Incorrect. The argument isn't over the right to break into smaller countries, but rather the impact of doing so on the world economy.

Incorrect. The conclusion is just about whether these large countries breaking up would increase barriers to free trade, not whether they'd strengthen or weaken the economy overall (that's what the opposing point discusses, but not the Economist). Additionally, even if the increase in the number of countries would strengthen the economy, that's no guarantee that it wouldn't increase barriers to free trade—maybe it would do so, but the benefits of it would outweigh those barriers.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Some people: When a large country splits up, the world economy is harmed by more national tariffs

Economist: Small countries don't think they're self-sufficient, so large countries breaking up doesn't increase barriers to free trade.

Answer Anticipation:
As with all Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, we should start by looking for a new concept in the conclusion. Unlike most of this question type, however, we don't find one! The premises discuss larger countries breaking up into smaller ones, and also barriers to free trade in the form of an increased number of national tariffs. Thus, the gap in the logic must be between the premises.

Taking the two "pieces" of the conclusion, what do we know about large countries breaking up? They become smaller countries, and these smaller countries don't think of themselves as economically self-sufficient. However, there's no discussion of any effects or outcomes from a country not viewing itself as self-sufficient, so that's the end of the chain building from that part of the conclusion.

What about the barriers to free trade? Well, we know that national tariffs are considered a barrier to free trade, but we don't learn anything about national tariffs.

So the gap between this argument is between countries not viewing themselves as self-sufficient, and implementing national tariffs. To build to the conclusion, we'd need something that looks like this (using conditional notation just to give this structure, not because it's conditional):
Big country splits up → Smaller countries → Don't view themselves as self-sufficient → Don't implement national tariffs → Don't increase barriers to free trade
The bold connection is the one missing from the premises, so it's what we should look for in the answer choices.

Answer Explanation:
This answer makes the connection that we identified as missing from the argument (well, the contrapositive). If we take the contrapositive of this answer, it states: not Think of self as economically self-sufficient → not Impose national tariffs/other barriers to free trade. The small countries don't think of themselves as economically self-sufficient, so they wouldn't impose national tariffs or other barriers to free trade, thus justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, always look for new concepts that show up only in the conclusion. When one is present, the correct answer will connect a premise to that new concept. When one isn't present—as we saw here—the gap is going to be between two premises, so see how the concepts in the conclusion tie into those premises and find the gap between them.

Incorrect. The opposing point is the one discussing the overall world economy; the Economist limits her argument to discussing whether something results in more barriers to free trade. Additionally, "strong evidence" can prove something is likely true, but not certainly true, and this argument's conclusion is certain.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't tie self-sufficiency into implementing tariffs, so it doesn't connect the premises to the conclusion. It's also relative and a reflection of reality. The stimulus states that small countries view themselves as not self-sufficient. Large countries being more self-sufficient may or may not mean that they're actually self-sufficient, and this answer establishes an actual relationship instead of a perceived ("view themselves") one, so it doesn't tie directly into the premise.