Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 3 · Question 22

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss "good consequences," so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. In reversing the conditional, the argument actually concludes that all obligations are from agreements made, so it doesn't assume the first part of this answer. The second half also doesn't address the jump from legal obligation to obligation generally.

Incorrect. The conclusion is a reversal of the premise, so the argument isn't circular. Additionally, there's no discussion of what anyone "should" do.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning (emphasis on errors)

Stimulus Summary:
Make agreement → Obligation to fulfill agreement
Therefore: Obligation to fulfill agreement → Made agreement
Therefore: Legal obligation = Obligation to fulfill agreement

Answer Anticipation:
Don't take question stems for granted—this one specifically asks for us to identify at least 2 flaws in the argument. We can't stop at just one!

And luckily, there's an intermediate conclusion on top of the main point, which means we should look for a flaw in each jump—premise to intermediate conclusion; intermediate conclusion to main point.

The premise and intermediate conclusion are both conditional statements, using "anyone" as the sufficient condition indicator. Looking at the diagrams, we can see that the argument reverses the conditional logic of the premise in the intermediate conclusion, so our first flaw is an illegal reversal (treating a sufficient condition as a necessary condition).

Looking at the intermediate conclusion and main point, there's a brand new term introduced in that main point—legal obligation. The argument equates it with a regular obligation (a term that has already been established in the argument), so the second flaw is that it equates two separate terms without establishing that they're related.

Answer Explanation:
The first half of this answer—treating a sufficient condition as necessary—reflects the reversal from the premise to the intermediate conclusion. The second half of this answer reflects the term shift from legal obligations to obligations generally. This answer hits both of the flaws, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Any argument that features an intermediate conclusion has a strong possibility of featuring two flaws—one between the premise(s) and intermediate conclusion, and another between the premises (including the intermediate conclusion) and the main point. Especially in a question where the question stem asks for multiple flaws, be sure to anticipate answers based on both gaps in reasoning.

Incorrect. "Action" is a pretty general term, and there's no indication that this argument shifts between different meanings of it. And the willingness to perform actions is out of scope—the argument is about obligation, not willingness.