Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 2 · Question 2

Incorrect. This answer is too broad and doesn't connect directly to the conclusion. After all, cruelty can be expressed towards something that you love or don't love.

Incorrect. The conclusion is implicitly about those who do keep pets, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument's conclusion is explicitly about those who are "most" opposed to animal cruelty, so there's no necessary assumption related to people who are merely "opposed" to it. And even if not a single person who works in these areas opposes cruelty to animals, those who do could still contribute to it through feeding their pets meat.

Incorrect. First, the vast majority are. Second, this answer cuts against the conclusion by suggesting that those against animal cruelty might all own, say, fish.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Many opposed to cruelty to animals have pets that eat meat. Therefore, many of these people actually contribute to cruelty to animals.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently deal with a shift between related concepts, so it's generally good to take a look at the conclusion to see if there's a new term or concept that shows up. The assumption will almost certainly be a connection between that concept and a similar concept in the premises.

It can also be helpful to identify overlap—concepts that show up in both the premises and conclusion. This should give you some idea as to which concept from the premises is assumed to justify the conclusion.

Here, the new concept in the conclusion is contributing to animal cruelty. The overlap is in talking about people who are most opposed to animal cruelty.

In the premises, that group is established as owning pets that eat meat. In the conclusion, that group is stated to contribute to animal cruelty. Therefore, the assumption will bridge that gap—connecting keeping pets that eat meat/feeding meat to pets with contributing to animal cruelty.

Answer Explanation:
This answer puts forward the connection we anticipated. The evidence that the group most opposed to animal cruelty contributes to it is that they feed their pets meat. If that doesn't contribute to animal cruelty, then the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Looking for new concepts in the conclusion of a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question can help you to identify part of the assumption. Identifying what concepts repeat from the premises can help you identify what detail/concept in the premise that new concept needs to be connected to.