Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 4 · Question 22

Incorrect. The conclusion is about having compelling reasons for doing a certain action, so an answer bringing up that there aren't always such reasons won't justify that conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
When short- and long-term business interests conflict, the moral one is usually in the long-term interest. So businesses have a compelling reason to be moral.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions very frequently have new concepts that show up in the conclusion that need to be attached to a term from the premises. Focusing on the conclusion and identifying any new term can be a great way to find the correct connection quickly.

Here, the conclusion discusses two concepts: compelling reasons for businesses to act, and morally preferable acts. The former isn't mentioned in the premises, but the latter is. The correct answer, therefore, should connect the unmentioned concept—compelling reasons—to whatever term in the premise is connected to the shared term—morally preferable acts.

In the premises, it's established that actions serving the long-term interests of a business are morally preferable. So the argument is assuming that an action serving the long-term interests of a business gives that business a compelling reason to do that action. Let's find that connection in an answer.

One more note—the conclusion is of weak strength ("often" being akin to "some"). As such, an answer of essentially any strength could justify it, but these questions generally have answers that match the conclusion, so that's something else we can look out for.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the terms the argument needs to connect and matches the strength of the conclusion, so it's the correct answer. If long-term interests give businesses a compelling reason to act, and they are also the morally preferable act, then there's a compelling reason to do the moral thing.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, look for new concepts in the conclusion. They'll have to be mentioned in the correct answer in some form. After all, you can't reach a conclusion on a topic without establishing something as true about that topic in the premises!

Incorrect. The argument already established that the morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long-term interests, so this answer doesn't add much to the argument.

Incorrect. The short-term interests aren't directly related to the conclusion, and this answer doesn't draw a connection between them, so this answer is incorrect. It also fails to discuss what gives businesses a compelling reason to act, so it's missing a key connection to the conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish what is an overriding consideration, so it can't justify a conclusion about what is a compelling reason to act.