Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 2 · Question 10

Incorrect. This answer choice sets the characters in comedies and tragedies as different from the worlds of romance/satire, which doesn't establish that they're mutually exclusive. This answer also only talks about "[s]ome" characters, whereas the premises are about the major characters—if this answer only applies to minor characters, then it's out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion lumps tragedy/comedy and satire/romance together. As such, the similarities between satire/romance are relevant, whereas the differences aren't. Since the visions of the worlds were what set satire and romance apart from each other, this answer choice sets up a comparison that's irrelevant to the comparison in the conclusion.

Incorrect. First, this answer only addresses tragedies—it would have to, at least, address both tragedies and comedies in order to justify the conclusion. Second, this answer conflates elements of tragedy/comedy with elements of romance/satire.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Romance literature—Idealized world
Satirical literature—Debased world
Both—Major characters have morality reflecting their world

Comedy/Tragedy—Moral qualities change during action

Conclusion: Comedy/Tragedy can't be Romance/Satire.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is replete with comparisons between different genres of literature, so keeping those pieces of information and comparisons straight will be key. We laid them out piecemeal in the Summary area, but any means you used to track the similarities and differences presented would be sufficient.

With that information clearly laid out, we can start to look for the assumption of the argument. The premises talk about ways in which romance and satire are similar and different, but the conclusion lumps them together, so we should focus more on the similarity. That similarity also relates to the information presented about comedies/tragedies, and the conclusion relates all the genres, so that's more evidence we're looking in the right place for the gap!

The conclusion is that romance/satire can't be comedy/tragedy—in other words, they're different genres. This is based on romance/satire having characters with morality that reflects the world, whereas comedy/tragedy have characters with morality that changes during the work. In order for the first set of genres to not be the second set, then, the argument would need to establish that what is said about those genres is incompatible with what we know about the latter genres.

So the correct answer should state that if a work has characters with morality that reflects their world, then that morality can't change in the course of the work.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice establishes that characters in romance/satire don't change their morality during the course of those works—a requirement of comedy/tragedy! While this answer is more direct than our anticipated answer, it still establishes that the former two genres are incompatible with the latter two, thus guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument is based almost entirely on comparisons, it's important to keep those comparisons straight. Also, when a conclusion is about things being similar or different, focus on premises that match.

Incorrect. Minor characters are out of scope since the premises are all about major characters.