Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. This answer is about what companies can produce, not how that works with attracting customers, so it doesn't address the gap in the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Consumers - "We want the best quality at the lowest prices!"
not Attract customers → Bankrupt
Therefore - not Best quality AND not Lowest prices → Bankrupt

Answer Anticipation:
Another question where viewing it as conditional isn't strictly necessary, but it can be helpful to do so to evaluate the argument!

The conclusion here is that companies that have neither the best quality nor the lowest prices will go bankrupt. All of those terms are in the premises, so the gap in the argument must be between those premises. Let's see what the terms in the conclusion are connected to in the premises to see where that gap is!

Starting with the necessary condition, the premises establish that a company that doesn't attract customers will go bankrupt. So adding that into the conclusion, we get:
not Best quality AND not Lowest prices → ??? → not Attract customers → Bankrupt

The missing piece now is between a company without the best quality and lowest prices and not attracting customers. And this is where it gets a bit difficult—isn't that what the first statement says? Nope! While that statement says that customers are attracted to the best quality and the lowest prices, it doesn't state that they're only attracted to those products. It's possible that they're also attracted to adequate quality at a very low price.

So the gap is between a company that sells neither the best quality product nor the lowest priced product, and a company that can't attract customers. That connection should be established in the correct answer:
not Best quality AND not Lowest prices → not Attract customers

Answer Explanation:
This answer draws the connection the argument needs to establish its conclusion. If products that lack both of these qualities fail to attract consumers, then the company producing them will—based on the second premise—eventually go bankrupt. The conclusion would be valid if this were true, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions generally have a gap between the premises and the conclusion. However, sometimes the gap is between the premises themselves. In both cases, track the connections that are established between the various terms—especially those in the conclusion—to see where that gap is.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of the conclusion and thus won't be helpful in allowing that conclusion to be drawn.

Incorrect. This answer cuts against the conclusion by suggesting that companies that don't have products that attract consumers will still have customers based on loyalty. Answers that go against arguments won't serve to justify their conclusion.

Incorrect. A failure to make products that attract consumers is noted as a sufficient condition for bankruptcy, not necessary, so the argument doesn't assume that there are no other reasons to lead to bankruptcy.