Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 4 · Question 4

Incorrect. This answer highlights a downside of the practice that the Essayist is arguing against—the reporting in this area is particularly inaccurate. If that's the case, it supports halting it, strengthening the argument.

Incorrect. This answer brings up a downside of the practice the Essayist is arguing against—it distracts voters from more important issues. That supports the recommendation to halt the practice.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer brings up a downside of the practice in question. If the writing is mostly rumors that are politically motivated, then the reporting probably isn't particularly accurate or meaningful, and thus there's reason to stop it.

Incorrect. This answer shows that the second reason given by the Essayist for banning the practice has actually happened in the real world. In showing that a downside of a practice is being realized, this answer strengthens an argument against that practice.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
The press prying into private lives of politicians:
(1) Is something the politicians don't want
(2) Discourages talented people from becoming politicians
So we should stop this type of journalism

Answer Anticipation:
This Bizarro Strengthen question is asking us to eliminate four answers that strengthen the recommendation to ban journalism covering the private lives of politicians. In general, strengthening a recommendation involves bringing up positives of taking that course of action, eliminating a downside (or showing it's outweighed by the upside), or establishing a principle that justifies the recommendation.

Here, we have two specific reasons given for the recommendation, so we can also specifically look for answers that show those reasons as relevant to the recommendation.

Also, this recommendation is against a certain practice, so we can also look for answers that bring up a downside of that practice (or eliminate an upside of it).

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that reporting on the personal lives of politicians serves a legitimate purpose, since personal flaws impact their job performance. If this is the case, then there's an upside to the practice that the Essayist is arguing against, weakening the argument that the practice should be halted. Since this answer weakens the argument, it addresses the question stem and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument makes a recommendation, it's saying that doing something is better than the alternatives (or doing nothing). As such, pros and cons of the action and alternatives actions are relevant. Additionally, in reaching a recommendation, the criteria that will be used should be established—usually stated in a principle. You should proactively look for all of these elements in an argument that concludes a recommendation, and if you find any of them are missing, you have likely identified a shortcoming/flaw in the argument.