Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 1 · Question 25

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Businesses that have frequent social events generally are more profitable, so EZ Corporation could increase profits by throwing more parties.

Answer Anticipation:
Weaken questions frequently have correlation/causation flaws, so we should always be on the lookout for causal language in the conclusion. We see that here—"boost" is causal, suggesting that a certain change (more parties) will have the desired effect (increased profits).

Is that based on a correlation? Yep—corporations that have parties also tend ("average") to show higher profits.

Since this Weaken question features a correlation/causation flaw, we can look for one of the standard answers:
(1) ID an alternative cause
(2) Counterexamples (though this is less likely since the argument discusses an average, and thus it takes into account outliers/counterexamples)
(3) Reversed causality (the parties are being thrown because of the profits instead of the parties leading to the profits)

Answer Explanation:
This answer weakens the argument by suggesting the causality is reversed—it's not the parties that lead to profits, but rather the profits that lead to parties.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen and Weaken questions frequently feature correlation/causation flaws (nearly 50% of the time), and when they do, there are common types of answers to be on the lookout for. Knowing this pattern can help both your accuracy and your speed, so be sure to study them!

Incorrect. This answer appears to address a shift in the argument—from events in the workplace to events during business hours—but it does so in a manner too weak to affect the argument. In stating that this comparison holds for "some" businesses, it's not providing enough strength to address an argument about averages (premise) or a specific business (conclusion).

Incorrect. Just because EZ Corporation is already seeing solid profits without these parties doesn't mean those profits can't be boosted by throwing some parties. It could be that they're succeeding despite not throwing parties, not because of it.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't connect to profits. Sure, an argument could be made that productivity would go down with less time to perform assigned duties, but an argument could just as easily be made that people who socialize together are less stressed and work better together, thus increasing productivity despite the lower time. Since this answer doesn't directly connect to the supposed effect, it's out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't tie the time periods of having parties to those of being more or less profitable, so we can't analyze the impact this answer has on the argument.