Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 2 · Question 11

Incorrect. This answer is a negation of the situation in the stimulus, not something the argument fails to take into account.

Incorrect. The argument is about nations that are seeing a raised standard of living, so the nations in question here would be out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion mentions only that the investment happened, not that it happened recently, so this answer isn't something the argument overlooks.

Incorrect. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Maintain high standard of living → Maintain functioning infrastructure
Investment in infrastructure will raise the standard of living
Therefore — A country with an increasing standard of living must have invested in infrastructure

Answer Anticipation:
The argument absolutely establishes that one way to raise the standard of living is to invest in infrastructure. However, it concludes that a nation with a rising standard of living must have invested in infrastructure. Therefore, it must be assuming that there's no other way of increasing the standard of living. After all, if there were, then an increasing standard of living wouldn't guarantee infrastructure investment—it could also stem from this other cause.

The correct answer should deal with this. Since the question stem asks us about something the argument fails to take into account, it'll likely be phrased to reflect that there are other potential avenues of investment (or action) that would result in the increased standard of living.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that there are other means by which a nation could increase its standard of living. In concluding that seeing an increasing standard of living is enough to know that the nation invested in infrastructure, the argument is ignoring other ways they could have achieved that goal. This answer reflects what the argument fails to consider and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion brings up the same concepts as in the premises, see if it's flipping the relationship around. When it does so, it's committing a flaw, even if you haven't treated the stimulus as purely conditional.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't fail to consider this—they would either then get back to infrastructure spending and see an increase in their standard of living, or fail to reinvest in infrastructure and not see that increase.