Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. If this answer connected figuring out why certain children are nightmare-prone to identifying them, then it might be in scope. As is, this answer recommends psychologists do something completely different than what's in the stimulus, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is the reverse of what we want. The stimulus notes that the technique can be taught to adults, not children, so we need to know that anything that can be taught to an adult can be taught to a child, not the other way around.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
Technique: Teach adults to replace nightmares with sweet dreams
Consideration: Kids who have nightmares tend to become adults who have nightmares
Conclusion: Teach kids the technique

Answer Anticipation:
There's a problem here—people are having nightmares—and a solution—a technique that has been successfully taught to adults. From that, the argument concludes that efforts should be directed to teach kids the technique.

But that argument is relying on two big jumps. First, it's relying on kids and adults being relevantly similar as far as nightmares and the technique is concerned. Maybe kids can't or shouldn't learn this technique; maybe only adults can handle some aspect of the technique.

Second, it's relying on the fact that psychologists should be focused on preventing nightmares! Maybe nightmares serve an important purpose and psychologists shouldn't be trying to eliminate them. Maybe psychologists should be focused on doing something else for these patients other than teaching them this technique to minimize nightmares. The conclusion is a recommendation about what should be done, but it never establishes that minimizing nightmares is an important or valid goal.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that minimizing nightmares in adults is a goal that psychologists should have. If psychologists should be doing everything they can to cut down on nightmares in adults, then they should be teaching this technique to anyone who might have these nightmares—children included.

Key Takeaway:
Principle questions that feature "should/shouldn't" conclusions generally have correct answers that mirror that language, as we saw here. That said, there is a common exception—a principle that limits itself with an "only." For instance, if the argument's conclusion is that psychologists shouldn't do A for group X, then the correct answer could say that they should do A only for group Y—and since group X isn't group Y, that principle would justify not doing A for group X.

Incorrect. Without connecting the relative difficulty of these tasks to what psychologists should do, this answer is out of scope. It's possible that psychologists should ignore difficulty when deciding what to do in favor of some other consideration, such as effectiveness.

Incorrect. This answer is a negation of the conclusion. Since the conclusion is about what psychologists should do, it's almost certain that a principle stating what they shouldn't do will be incorrect.