Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 2 · Question 26

Incorrect. The conditional in the stimulus is based on people being able to compare prices from different sellers to the actual value of the repairs, not that they actually do so.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Properly functioning free market → Buyers can shop around
Auto repair industry: Advertised prices and written estimates from many businesses
Conclusion: Auto repair industry is not Properly functioning free market

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions frequently feature conditional logic, so you should be on the lookout for indicator words. Here, that "must" in the first sentence tells us that we're getting a conditional rule. After diagramming it, we can see that it can justify the conclusion when we take the contrapositive:

not Buyers can shop around → not Properly functioning free market

We paraphrased quite a bit in saying that the necessary condition of the initial conditional is "Buyers can shop around," so we'll head back to pick up on all the details if they're important to the answer. And seeing that the conclusion is valid if that sufficient condition is met for the auto repair industry, we know that it is.

In order to reach that conclusion, therefore, we need to connect the auto repair industry to buyers not being able to shop around—or, in its full form from the stimulus, why each prospective buyer can't contact a large number of independent prospective sellers and compare the prices charged to what they're worth. Normally, we'd do this by connecting what we do know about the auto repair industry to that term, but the information provided seems to suggest that the auto repair industry does have at least some of the elements of a properly functioning free market.

So instead we need to find out what's left for the auto repair industry to not meet that definition. It's established that there are many businesses with advertised prices and who will provide written estimates. Looking at the sufficient condition, that ticks the boxes of buyers being able to contact many/a large number of independent sellers and comparing prices. However, it doesn't address that final part of the sufficient condition—comparing the prices not to each other, but to what the repairs are worth. Since the argument does establish most of the sufficient condition doesn't apply in these cases, but we need it to apply to justify the conclusion, the correct answer needs to establish that the auto repair industry is one where not all of the prospective buyers can compare the prices they're quoted to what the repairs are worth.

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals with assessing what repairs are worth, which we determined was the relevant details in the anticipation. The initial rule required "each buyer" to be able to do something, so if some can't, then that's enough to play into the rule. If some people can't tell what the repairs are worth, then they can't compare that amount to the quotes, and thus the auto repair market isn't a properly functioning free market.

Key Takeaway:
It was a long way to go, but at the end of the day, this argument's structure applied a general conditional to a specific case. When that happens, it's frequently the case that the information provided about the specific case isn't enough to guarantee the sufficient condition is met, and the correct answer in a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise will provide that information. This question is a bit interesting in that it provides information that seems to suggest the sufficient condition isn't met, but it leaves open one detail that could still trigger that conditional, and that ended up in the correct answer.

Incorrect. The argument only requires that a "large number" of independent price quotes are available, so if some auto repair shops don't give quotes but enough do, that market can still be properly functional.

Incorrect. As long as each customer can compare the charges to the repairs' worth, then some places overcharging doesn't prevent the market from being properly functional.

Incorrect. The argument requires people to be able to assess the worth of repairs, which itself doesn't require standardized prices.