Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 4 · Question 25

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
C: If a job candidate salts their food before tasting it, I conclude they make decisions with inadequate info.

L: Analogy 1—Wearing a sweater to a supermarket is logical since they're always cold.
Analogy 2—Throwing out credit card mailers is logical since they're always a bad deal
Conclusion—Your method of analyzing candidates is dumb.

Answer Anticipation:
There's nothing better than having three examples (or counterexamples) to work with! Here, we want to find a principle that connects Larissa's examples and runs counter to Claude's, so we can use the common elements of all three situations to anticipate the correct answer.

In each scenario, someone makes a decision ahead of an experience. In Larissa's examples, both of these experiences involve a repeated experience—something that people have experienced before. In having been to supermarkets before, a person can learn that they're generally cold. In receiving credit card offers before, a person can learn that they're not worth it to that individual. The thing connecting these is that a class of "experiences"—supermarkets, credit card offers—all share a common feature that can allow a conclusion to be reached about them before they're actually experienced. And since a conclusion can be reached about them without full information, a decision based on that conclusion can be reasonable.

How does this apply to the situation raised by Claude? Well, it's possible that the job candidates have been to enough restaurants to know that, in general, restaurants always undersalt their food, and so starting by adding a bit of salt before tasting the food could be reasonable if someone prefers more salt than restaurants generally put into their food.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice, under all the abstract language, discusses what binded Larissa's two examples together. Taking an action ahead of a particular experience—without first ascertaining whether it is appropriate in that specific circumstance—can be a good decision if experience has taught you that that experience generally requires an action for you to enjoy it. Whether it's salting your food before tasting it, or wearing a sweater to a grocery store that's likely to be cold, or tearing up junk mail because you know you don't want another credit card.

Key Takeaway:
When someone brings up multiple examples or analogies in making their point, the common threads between the two will define what overarching principle or generalization they're appealing to.

Incorrect. Larissa's two examples aren't in a professional context, and Claude's analysis didn't involve analyzing job-related behavior.

Incorrect. First, Larissa's examples weren't about a job candidate's suitability. Second, her examples do deal with scenarios where a certain pattern of behavior would be repeated.

Incorrect. There's no indication that salting one's food before tasting it doesn't conform to a generally expected norm; neither of Larissa's examples raise a generally accepted norm, either.

Incorrect. Larissa doesn't believe that the job candidate or herself in the supermarket or credit card offer situation is using bad decision-making strategies.