Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 1 · Question 14

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular reasoning flaw, but the conclusion is a recommendation and the premises are all downsides of the course of action in that conclusion, so the premises and conclusion are distinct.

Incorrect. The argument establishes three negatives of acquiring expensive new tastes, so it doesn't assume that there are other negatives—like financial irresponsibility. Additionally, it already establishes that they're expensive—that can be a negative without leading to them being irresponsibly expensive.

Incorrect. While the term is pretty vague/generic, it has a set, standard definition that makes sense in context here, so a definition isn't needed. If it used it multiple times in a manner that suggested it shifted, then this answer would be in play.

Incorrect. There's no reversed causality in this stimulus. All of the noted downsides are effects of pursuing an expensive hobby.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
You shouldn't try expensive new things because:
(1) They're expensive (. . . . )
(2) You might get annoyed by some new things
(3) It takes effort

Answer Anticipation:
Wow, Moralist, you sound like a kid trying to get out of trying new food!

The Moralist here recommends against a course of action. When making a recommendation, an argument generally needs to establish the criteria by which a decision will be made, and then fully explore that criteria.

Here, the Moralist fails to establish criteria for what is and isn't worthwhile to pursue. She also fails to fully explore everything associated with a new hobby. Sure, she goes extensively into the negatives, but she doesn't discuss the positives at all.

The correct answer, then, should highlight one of these two shortcomings:
(1) Failure to establish how to determine what pursuits are and aren't worthwhile
(2) Fully exploring both the pros and cons of a certain activity before making a recommendation about it

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the argument is one-sided—it looks at the cons, but it doesn't consider the pros. This is the flaw in the argument, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When making a recommendation, an argument generally needs to establish the criteria by which a decision will be made, and then fully explore that criteria. Frequently, these arguments will be flawed in that they fail to establish the criteria, or that they only look at one side of it (here, the cons and not the pros).