Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 4 · Question 12

Incorrect. While the Scientist does conclude that their criticism is never sincere, that's different from stating that those making it should be viewed as insincere—that's a jump between an action and the person making it.

Incorrect. This answer is a recommendation that's never made in the stimulus, so this is out of scope.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this is a (soft) recommendation that's never stated in the stimulus, so it's out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Criticism made by politicians that their opponents' ideas are incomprehensible are common, but it isn't sincere because incomprehensible ideas wouldn't come into effect.

Answer Anticipation:
Whether or not this Political Scientist's argument is itself muddled and incomprehensible, it does fall into a common pattern! She starts by bringing up something that a certain group does before pivoting ("however") to an opinion on this action—it's never sincere. That's an opinion and it reflects on what this other group does—the author's opinion on an opposing viewpoint/group is almost always the main point. The final two clauses explain why she believes it's insincere, so that pivot statement is the main point.

The correct answer will either directly state that criticism by politicians is insincere, or it will pull some of the details in.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the pivot statement where the author establishes her feelings on a certain action before backing up why she feels that way. Contrast this with (A), where the focus here is on the actions ("is being") and not the person ("should be regarded as"), which aligns with the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
When there's an opposing point or a group that's being discussed and the author weighs in with an opinion on that point/group, it's almost always the main point of the argument.

Incorrect. First, there's a shift in this answer between the stimulus ("cannot be understood") and this answer ("cannot be misunderstood"). Second, even without that shift, this answer is the premise—the reason why the criticism should be viewed as insincere.