Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 4 · Question 21

Incorrect. There's no indication that the news coverage from the stimulus is downplaying the odds against winning—it's the "great deal of attention" itself that is assumed to skew people's perceptions of their own chances.

Incorrect. The argument assumes that news coverage of individuals skews people's perceptions of themselves ending up in a similar situation. That doesn't require the effect to be limited to the lottery—the argument could still work (and might even be strengthened) if people's perceptions of their odds of having anything happen to them that they see on the news is altered.

Incorrect. Media attention doesn't have to be the only thing messing with people's perceptions of their chances of winning the lottery for it to have that effect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
There's almost no chance you'll win the lottery, but the news covers the winners. Most people are generally aware of the news, so many people likely overestimate their chances of hitting the lottery jackpot.

Answer Anticipation:
One way to track information through a stimulus is to focus on the groups that are mentioned. Here, the conclusion is about "many people" who are likely to overestimate their chances of winning the lottery. Tracking that group into the premises, we should look to see what is established about them that the author believes justifies the conclusion. One premise talks about lottery winners—a different group—and another about local news coverage—not a group at all! However, the final premise (stapled into the conclusion) is about "most people" who come to be aware of anything extensively covered on the news.

So the argument is relying on at least some of those people who are generally aware of news coverage overestimating their lottery chances. What about the news coverage does the argument treat as driving this overestimation? Well, that news coverage is of the lottery winners. Since that news coverage is what the argument believes is driving the overestimation in this group, the argument must be assuming that viewing news coverage of lottery winners makes at least some people overestimate their own chances of winning the lottery. Let's find an answer that addresses that connection.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the news coverage to the overestimation of odds. At least some people must have their perception of their odds of winning the lottery influenced by news coverage for the argument to work.

Key Takeaway:
Identifying a key group in the conclusion can help you keep track of how the argument works and where the gaps are. Here, starting with the group that overestimated their chances of winning the lottery and then seeing where that group showed up in the premises makes it a lot easier to track the development of the logic throughout the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of what we were looking for. The argument requires at least some who watch the news to have an overestimation of their odds to hold together; there being some people who don't overestimate their odds after watching the news is out of scope.