Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 1 · Question 10

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background - Sandstrom's newspaper published a story about strange happenings on a farm, and people investigating it damaged that farm
Mendels' - Sandstrom should have expected her column would lead to this damage
Conclusion - If that's true, then Sandstrom should pay for the damage

Answer Anticipation:
For Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, we need to justify the conclusion based on the premises. It's very much a matter of connecting ideas that are already on the page.

Here, the conclusion is itself conditional—if Sandstrom could have reasonably expected her article to cause damage to the farm, then she should pay for that damage. The premises, however, never discuss her expectations (the Mendels' claim she could have reasonably been expected to know, but that's not the same as it being a reasonable expectation) or who should pay for damage. Therefore, the correct answer should establish that one who can reasonably expect their actions to cause damage, that person should pay for that damage.

Answer Explanation:
This answer justifies the conclusion of the argument. Sandstrom published an article that indirectly damaged the Mendels' farm. If one should pay for any damage that one could have reasonably expected to result from their actions, then the conclusion here is justified.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure to note when a conclusion is conditional. Here, treating that "if" portion as a premise could have led to selecting an incorrect answer—in particular, (D).

Incorrect. This answer establishes a necessary condition for when someone should pay for damage their actions indirectly caused, and the argument is based around having a sufficient condition for that. Additionally, this answer is about an actual expectation and not one that could be reasonably expected.

Incorrect. The argument is about who should pay for the damage, not who might pay for the damage.

Incorrect. Without a premise establishing that someone with a reasonable expectation that their actions would cause damage should pay for that damage, it doesn't matter if Sandstrom had such an expectation. The conclusion itself includes this justification, so it's not a part of the premises.

Incorrect. If a principle requires that there be a reasonable expectation of something, it doesn't require the person involved to have formed that expectation. A reasonable expectation exists outside of the subjective ability of the person involved.