Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 2 · Question 6

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Soda doesn't have exact caffeine content listed on it.
Exact caffeine content listed → Easier to limit caffeine intake
Easier to limit caffeine intake → Many limit caffeine → Many see improved health

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus starts with some background before diving into a couple conditionals. While the first statement doesn't have as clear of a conditional indicator word, it does denote certainty ("would make"), and certainty can be represented as a conditional. The "If" in the second statement is much clearer, but it does have a chain itself, which we represented here as a three-part conditional. There's no difference between this and a normal chain!

With those diagrammed out, we can see that they chain together to form:

Exact caffeine content listed → Easier to limit caffeine intake → Many limit caffeine → Many see improved health

not Many see improved health → not Many limit caffeine → not Easier to limit caffeine intake → not Exact caffeine content listed

The contrapositive chain is a bit messy because the original statement dealt with things that would happen in the future, so let's hope that the correct answer deals with the chain itself so we don't have to worry about any messiness there!

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice matches the chain we formed by combining the two conditional premises, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Must Be True questions frequently deal with conditional chains. If you have a conditional and another statement that shares a term with it, look to see if that statement has a word that's strong enough to create a conditional. It frequently will, and then you'll be off to the races.

Incorrect. The sufficient condition of this answer is the negation of the sufficient condition of our initial chain, so this is likely an illegal negation and we shouldn't spend time diagramming it out.

Incorrect. If we're generous, we can say that the exact caffeine content not being listed is triggered by people having to guess how much caffeine is in their soft drink (which is a jump). If that's the case, then we run into the same issue as (B)—the sufficient condition here is the negation of the sufficient condition in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The stimulus specifically notes that listing the exact caffeine content would help to limit but not eliminate caffeine, so those who want to eliminate caffeine entirely wouldn't be helped in their goal by having the exact amount listed.

Incorrect. First, there's a jump between everyone knowing how much caffeine is in their soft drinks and that information being listed—people might ignore the label. Second, even then, while the stimulus establishes that many would see improved health, it's possible that all would (some statements guarantee at least 1%, but they could actually refer to all), and there's no support that anyone's health would decline.