Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 3 · Question 15

Incorrect. There's no indication that any of the conditions in the stimulus are optional—Sonya could believe that people just inherently fall into one of these two categories. As such, how people "prioritize" things is out of scope. Those who prioritize having a positive emotional outlook won't necessarily have one, and those who prioritize dispelling illusions might actually be living a lie.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't suggest that everyone falls into the same of these two camps, which is what would be required to support this answer that one of these two necessary conditions doesn't show up in humanity.

Incorrect. It's unclear if having a clouded mind or having a tainted emotional outlook is a result of self-deception, so this answer doesn't connect to the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
not Live with constant awareness of fragility → Clouded mind
Live with constant awareness of fragility → Tainted emotional outlook

Answer Anticipation:
What a bleak stimulus. Sonya must be fun at parties.

Sonya's argument discusses the implications of being constantly aware of our own fragility and mortality. "Anyone" who lacks a constant awareness of it has a clouded mind. That anyone is a sufficient condition indicator, hence the diagram. And those who do have such an awareness (all those who don't, giving us another conditional) have a tainted emotional outlook on existence (we might call them "emo").

Since the sufficient conditions are the negations of each other, Sonya's statements cover everyone—you're either constantly aware of something, or you're not constantly aware of something—so one potential answer is that everyone has either a clouded mind or a tainted emotional outlook. Let's head into the answer looking for that answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't match our anticipation, but it does seem to follow from our observation that everyone falls into one of these two camps. We can actually take the contrapositive of one to chain these together, so to see if this answer is the results, we should take the contrapositive of second statement to get it to line up:
not Tainted emotional outlook → not Live with constant awareness of fragility
not Live with constant awareness of fragility → Clouded mind
Putting them together, we get: not Tainted emotional outlook → Clouded mind. That's what this answer states, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When two sufficient conditions are the negation of each other, they are comprehensive—they cover all possibilities. When that's the case, that also means that one of the two necessary conditions applies in all cases, as well. And, as we saw here, that means if you don't fall into one of the necessary conditions, you must fall into the other.

Incorrect. Sonya never discusses which of these two groups it's "better" to be a part of, so this answer is out of scope.