Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. The argument isn't about what's more or less important, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Using Smith's own logic against her, we should be able to understand her true meaning by looking at her social circumstances. Therefore, Smith doesn't know the true meaning of her own words.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot of convoluted background to this argument, so let's start with where the Speaker's argument starts—the pivot. There, whatever Smith's point, the Speaker establishes that he's about to apply it to Smith's statements. Doing so would let us understand Smith by understanding her social circumstances. A fact, concludes the Speaker, that prevents Smith from knowing the true meaning of her own words.

That's a heady argument, and you're in good company if you're a bit lost in what the Speaker is talking about. However, in Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, we're tasked with justifying the conclusion. To do so, we need to connect it to the premises.

Here, the conclusion talks about someone not being aware of the true meaning of their own words—an idea not brought up anywhere in the premises. This conclusion is based on this person's true meaning being something that can be determined by looking at their social circumstances. Since analyzing these social circumstances is set up in the premise as a way of understanding someone's true meaning, and the conclusion is that Smith can't tell the true meaning of her own words, then the argument is assuming that Smith can't analyze her own social circumstances. Let's find an answer stating as much.

Answer Explanation:
The premises of the argument establishes understanding someone's social circumstances as a means of understanding their true meaning. If Smith can't understand her own social circumstances, then she'd lack the basis to understand the true meaning of her words, as the conclusion states. This answer justifies that conclusion, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument uses abstract/convoluted language and you're getting lost in the meaning, start with the conclusion. Identify the key concepts. See if they show up in the premises and, if so, what ideas they're connected to. Build out your understanding that way. This has the added benefit of stripping away the irrelevant information—if it's not tied to the conclusion, it's likely not relevant!

Incorrect. Intent isn't mentioned in the stimulus, nor is it inherently related to any of the key concepts, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Since the argument relies on applying Smith's theory to her own words, this answer goes against the argument instead of justifying the conclusion.

Incorrect. Intent isn't mentioned in the stimulus, nor is it inherently related to any of the key concepts, so this answer is out of scope.