Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 3 · Question 18

Incorrect. The Ethicist states that an argument bringing up an undeniable feature of nature that makes it worth preserving is less open to logical objections, so her argument doesn't suggest avoiding that issue.

Incorrect. The Ethicist's conclusion is about which of two arguments is less vulnerable to criticism, not what is a sufficient reason for preserving nature.

Incorrect. The characteristic that the Ethicist establishes as debatable is the moral value of nature. However, she never claims that if nature isn't morally valuable then it'd be more clearly worth preserving—just that an argument based on moral value is subject to criticism.

Incorrect. The Ethicist argues in favor of an argument based on beauty, not moral value, so this answer flips the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Argument 1 - Nature is worth preserving because it's inherently morally valuable
Argument 2 - Nature is worth preserving because it's beautiful
The moral value of nature is up for dispute, but it's beauty isn't
Therefore - Argument 2 is less vulnerable to logical objections

Answer Anticipation:
Be very careful here—the conclusion of this argument isn't about whether nature is worth preserving. Rather, it's about what argument for that conclusion is less vulnerable to logical objections. Since Strengthen (Principle) questions ask us to find an answer that reflects the argument, it's important to be precise when defining that conclusion.

So what does the Ethicist believe would serve as an argument subject to fewer objections? Beauty over moral value. Why? Because the former is undeniable, whereas the latter can be denied.

By connecting those ideas, we can anticipate an answer similar to:
If an argument is based on something that's undeniable, it's an argument that is less subject to logical objections than if it were based on something that could be denied.

Answer Explanation:
This answer allows the conclusion to be drawn based on the details. Beauty is established as a basis for preserving nature, and it's also established as being philosophically indisputably a part of nature. If that's sufficient to guarantee an argument that appeals to beauty is less open to logical objections, then the argument that bases preserving nature on it will be less open to such objections than an alternative that isn't based on a characteristic that's indisputably a part of nature.

Key Takeaway:
Always be precise when paraphrasing the conclusion of an argument. Almost all argument-based questions will require you to know exactly what the conclusion says, and small term shifts away from the conclusion's language can be enough to invalidate an answer.