Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 3 · Question 13

Incorrect. This answer is a reversal of the logic in the argument. There, the premise about overstating such similarities was used to justify a conclusion about presenting events as mere repetitions of the past. This answer, instead, goes from the conclusion to the premises.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Journalistic practice - Use historical photos in articles on current events
Problem - Makes the past and present appear too similar, undercutting the importance of current events
Conclusion - The practice distorts public understanding (thinking the present is just repeating the past)

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever we're dealing with a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question, we should start by seeing if there's a new concept brought up in the conclusion. Here, the conclusion talks about a distortion of the public's understanding of events, making them think the present is just repeating the past. The public's understanding is never discussed in the premises, so this is a new concept that'll have to be connected to a concept that is established in those premises.

This distortion is noted as being the result of a certain journalistic practice which is mentioned in the premises. What the premises do support about this practice is that it makes the past and present appear overly similar, denying current events appropriate significance.

Therefore, the correct answer should connect what we can conclude about this journalistic practice based on the premises with what is concluded in the argument about it:
Any journalistic practice that overstates the similarities between the past and present/denies the present events their significance will distort public understanding of those events/suggest they're mere repetitions of past events.

Yes, that's an overly wordy anticipation. To simplify, let's find an answer connecting overstating similarities to distorting public understanding.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice matches our anticipation, connecting what is established as true about the journalistic practice in the premises to what the argument concludes about those practices. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
The "direction" of the answer matters in a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question. The correct answer has to rely on the premise to establish the conclusion, so it has to go from the premise to the conclusion. If it's phrased conditionally, this means the sufficient condition has to line up with the premise, and the necessary condition has to line up with the conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer reverses the logic of the argument, going from the distortion of understanding to the denial of individual significance instead of the other way around.

Incorrect. We can diagram this answer choice out as: Treats event as repetition of past event → Use historical photos. That reverses the logic in the stimulus, much as (A) and (C) did!

Incorrect. This answer connects the two parts of the conclusion together instead of connecting the conclusion to the premises. It also deals with what journalists "believe" about current events as repetitions of the past, whereas the conclusion is about whether these events are "present[ed]" that way.