Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 2 · Question 9

Incorrect. Craig does contradict Rifka's conclusion, but he does provide a reason to reject one of her implicit premises (a fancy way of referring to an assumption)—he states that they are lost.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
R: not Lost → not Stop and ask for directions. Therefore, not Stop and ask for directions.

C: We are lost, therefore we need to stop.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument asks how Craig responds to Rifka, so we need to understand both of their arguments.

Rifka establishes a conditional rule (not Lost → not Stop), and then she concludes the necessary condition. However, she never actually states that they're not lost, so that's an assumption of her argument.

Craig, however, does explicitly state that they are lost. So he denies Rifka's assumption in order to reach a separate conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
Craig denies one of Rifka's implicit premises (that they're lost) and then reaches the opposite conclusion. This answer describes Craig's rebuttal, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
In Methods of Reasoning questions featuring two speakers, you should get in the habit of seeing if the two speakers use the same or different premises/assumptions to reach the same or different conclusion. Having that baseline can be helpful in finding the correct answer—and sometimes it'll be enough to find the answer by itself!

Incorrect. While Craig does reject Rifka's conclusion, he doesn't accept its premise (that conditional rule) or the implicit premise/assumption.

Incorrect. Rifka does present a principle/generalization, but she applies it to Craig and her specific case, so her argument isn't just a generalization. Craig's rebuttal also isn't a counterexample—he's talking about the same situation, they just have different takes on whether they're lost!

Incorrect. Craig explicitly contradicts Rifka's conclusion, and he doesn't explicitly affirm the truth of her conditional premise.