Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 4 · Question 21

Incorrect. The leaders here were motivated by a desire for reelection, not to benefit others, so this answer doesn't line up with the stimulus.

Incorrect. The proposition in the stimulus discusses an act that will successfully benefit people, so in stating that the act here was not successful, this answer fails to illustrate the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Illustration

Stimulus Summary:
Evidence act will benefit others AND Motivated to benefit others → Successfully benefit others

Answer Anticipation:
While not technically Principle questions, propositions" are pretty close. This proposition is presented as a conditional, so we can treat this question very much the same as we would a Must Be True (Principle) question.

As such, we should diagram out the conditional, get the judgment in the necessary condition, and then look at each answer to find the one that lines up with it. The conditional here is more straightforward than we usually get in such a question, there's only one of them, and the judgment (here, a prediction) is already in the necessary condition, so we can head straight to the answers.

Answer Explanation:
Betsy had evidence that an act would benefit her daughter—a heating contractor's expert opinion. She then helped her daughter out by performing the action recommended by the contractor, and it successfully benefited her daughter—the furnace didn't require maintenance. This answer illustrates the proposition from the stimulus, so this is the correct answer. (Note that intent isn't clearly established here, but benefiting her daughter is a reasonable inference, and all the other answers are much further away from the proposition, so we'll roll with it.)

Key Takeaway:
Question stems that talk about propositions frequently present them as principles, and you can approach the question using a similar process to a principle question.

Incorrect. Without knowing whether Sejal was successful, we can't determine if this situation illustrates the proposition.

Incorrect. Zachary hoped that psychotherapy would help his parents—there's no indication that he had any evidence of this. It also doesn't discuss his motives (maybe he selfishly wanted to stop his parents from fighting), so it's missing one piece and doesn't clearly establish another, letting us eliminate it. (Compare this to answer choice (C) where one criteria is established and another is implied, which makes it a much better answer than this one.)