Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 4 · Question 13

Incorrect. Both Sherrie and Fran limit their discussion to substances that cause withdrawal symptoms, not all drugs, so this answer is out of scope. (Even when discussing drugs generally, Sherrie limits herself to discussing dangerous" drugs, not all drugs.)

Incorrect. Fran believes that they should not be, disagreeing with this answer. And while Fran argues that Sherrie's logic would commit her to agreeing with this, Sherrie never actually weighs in on these specific drinks, so we can't commit her to disagreeing with this.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
S: Nicotine is addictive (causes withdrawal), which is sufficient to treat it the same as other drugs, and so governments should regulate tobacco.

F: That definition is too broad—it would justify regulating coffee and soft drinks, which is ridiculous!

Answer Anticipation:
Sherrie's argument goes on quite a journey, so let's start by looking at Fran's argument.

Fran uses a common method of reasoning to rebut Sherrie's argument—taking the logic used by the counterpoint and applying it to a situation that leads to an absurd conclusion. She shows that the definition of addictive" (causing withdrawal) is so broad that it would include coffee and soft drinks, and so the argument that meeting this definition is enough to call for governments to implement restrictions is clearly wrong.

So what is Fran taking issue with? Whether or not something that meets the given definition of "addictive" is enough to justify regulations. Sherrie believes it is ("For this reason alone . . . "), but Fran doesn't ("But of course [these items that meet this definition] should not be restricted.").

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects Sherrie's argument—scientists agree nicotine is addictive, and for "this reason alone" governments should regulate it. Fran disagrees—she disagrees with the definition of "addictive" that's being used, and so she disagrees that meeting that definition—even if scientists agree on it—doesn't justify regulating a substance. This is the point at issue between them, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When a second speaker generally rebuts the argument made by a first speaker, it's important to identify what aspects of the original argument are called into question. Sometimes, it's more subtle than in others. Here, there were no clear facts that were in disagreement, but rather the connection between the facts and the conclusion.

Incorrect. Sherrie relies on the opinion of scientists, so she'd disagree with this answer. It may seem as if Fran agrees with this answer, but she doesn't because she doesn't say that these substances aren't addictive. Instead, she argues that if this is the definition of addictive, then being addictive doesn't justify regulation because there are substances that meet the definition but shouldn't be restricted. So Fran very well may agree with the scientists on whether a substance is addictive while disagreeing with Sherrie on what to do about such substances.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses cooperation between government and scientists. While Sherrie does bring up a determination by scientists as justifying government regulations, that's not the same as advocating for cooperation between the two groups.