Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 4 · Question 4

Incorrect. The argument is solely about Cynthia's car, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument is solely over whether a pothole caused Cynthia's trunk to open, so other effects hitting a pothole may have on a car are out of scope.

Incorrect. Ray's argument concludes that one thing didn't cause another.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
C: Hitting a pothole caused my trunk to pop open.

R: Her trunk has popped open before; it was never because of a pothole. Therefore, the pothole didn't cause it this time.

Answer Anticipation:
We started by splitting the arguments here so that we can focus on Ray's argument. When we do that, we can see that Ray, while discussing the same issue as Cynthia, doesn't really call back to any parts of her argument, so her claims are a bit of a distraction. We can focus just on his comments.

There, Ray uses what has been true in the past to draw a conclusion about another case. Previous instances of Cynthia's trunk popping open weren't caused by a pothole, so this instance of her trunk popping open couldn't have been caused by a pothole. That assumes that what has been true as far as a cause is concerned will continue to be true, so any answer pointing out something to that effect should be considered.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the potential disconnect between the past and the present case. Ray rules out a pothole as a cause of Cynthia's trunk popping open because prior instances of that happening weren't caused by potholes. That assumes that the causes from before must be the cause of the present case, ignoring the possibility that there could be different causes.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument deals in causality, the answer almost always brings up that concept. Even if an answer doesn't perfectly match your anticipation—here, we were more focused on the past/present shift than alternative causality—you should consider it. Doing so here showed us that the two different flaws overlapped.

Incorrect. Ray uses past events to draw a conclusion about a present one. While that is flawed reasoning, it does present a reason to believe the conclusion, so the argument isn't circular.