Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 1 · Question 16

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the blameworthiness of feeling emotions, not acting on them, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Responsible → Under control
not Under control for some feelings
Therefore - not Blameworthy for some feelings

Answer Anticipation:
Let's start with the rephrasing of the conclusion—if it's "misguided" to believe someone is always morally blameworthy for feeling emotions, then it must be the case that it's not morally blameworthy sometimes to feel those emotions.

From there, we can diagram out the conditional ("only"), and then see that the other premise establishes the negation of the necessary condition. Negating the necessary condition allows a conclusion to be drawn from the contrapositive:
not Under control → not Responsible

So the premises allow us to conclude that for at least some feelings, people aren't responsible for them. That's used to reach a conclusion that they're not blameworthy for those actions.

That's a jump, however! Most Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions have a new term in the conclusion that needs to be connected to a concept from the premise, and this one is no different. We need to find an answer that connects not being responsible to not being morally blameworthy, which would bridge the gap between the premises and conclusion and allow the conclusion to follow logically:
not Responsible → not Morally blameworthy
Morally blameworthy → Responsible

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the concepts that the argument assumes are connected but never establishes a relationship between. The premises establish that people aren't responsible for at least some of their emotions. If that means they're not morally blameworthy for them (the contrapositive of this answer), then the conclusion follows logically.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions frequently feature a new term in the conclusion that needs to be connected to a term in the premise that the author believes justifies that conclusion without establishing it. Sometimes, the difficulty in anticipating these answers is that the missing connection is a reasonable one to assume—here, we think most people would believe that there is a connection between being responsible and being blameworthy. However, take a very literal look at all shifts—unless it's 100% certain that the terms guarantee each other, they don't.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about emotions such as unjustifiable anger/jealousy/resentment, so justifiable versions of them are out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument concerns a person's blameworthiness and responsibility for their own emotions, so the responsibility of others for one's emotions is out of scope without connecting the responsibility of others to one's own responsibility.

Incorrect. The argument is about blameworthiness, not whether someone is blamed—you can receive blame for something that's not blameworthy. This answer is therefore out of scope. Additionally, it's about things that aren't blameworthy, not things that are.