Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 1 · Question 15

Incorrect. There are no listed effects of good travel writing, and the fact that people are better traveled isn't explained with a cause, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. No one makes the claim that modern travel writing is intended for a wider readership, so this answer can't be correct. Note that the claim could be used to support this claim, it's just that no one actually makes it, and we're in an Argument Structure question, so we're describing what actually happens in the argument.

Incorrect. It's a part of the author's argument, and the author believes that the travel writers have demonstrated a good amount of talent.

Incorrect. The general public being better traveled is noted as posing a "challenge far greater" than in the past, not as causing the writing to flourish.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Anderson: Travel writing is worse now than a few decades ago.

Author: People travel more now, so travel writers have a harder job. Travel writing has flourished over the past several decades, so travel writers must be talented, and Anderson is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument opens with an opposing point—that of Anderson—before the author pivots and rebuts his argument. The statement in question comes after the pivot, so it's a part of the author's argument, not the opposing point.

The pivot here is a more complex pivot, using the word, "Although," which highlights a concession or common element with the opposing point. Here, the pivot agrees that travel writing has changed, but Anderson's criticism is "too harsh." Since this pivot is to the author's opinion of an opposing point, it's almost certainly the main point of the argument (and it's not the statement in question).

After this pivot, the author starts talking about the conditions today—the statement in question—and says that this presents writers with a greater challenge than in the past. So the statement in question is highlighting a change that has presented a problem for travel writing.

After that, the argument continues to discuss how the writers have responded and how this shows their talent, thus supporting the view that Anderson's criticism is too harsh (and confirming that as the main point).

So the statement in question is a premise that supports the main point by highlighting a change that travel writers needed to respond to.

Answer Explanation:
The better traveled general public presents modern travel writers with a "challenge" that these writers didn't have to face. A new challenge implies that there has been a transformation in the task, making it harder, and thus this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Remember that Argument Structure questions are asking you to describe what happens on the page, not what could have happened. Stick to answers that correctly describe the argument, and if even a single element is off, eliminate that answer.