Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 1 · Question 11

Incorrect. Meyer's doctoral thesis was found to have not committed fraud, so this answer doesn't apply to this situation.

Incorrect. This answer is about admitting students, not revoking their degrees after graduation.

Incorrect. Again, Meyer's work at the University wasn't found to be fraudulent, so this answer doesn't apply to this situation.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Facts - Meyer's falsified data at his job but not in his doctoral thesis.
Decision - The university that granted it to him revoked his doctorate.

Answer Anticipation:
We need a principle that justifies revoking someone's doctorate. What basis did the University of Williamstown have for doing so? Meyer falsified data—but this happened after he was granted his doctorate and was working, not on the work that earned him his PhD in the first place. So the correct answer will have to justify revoking a PhD based on fraud committed after the course of study was complete.

Answer Explanation:
This answer applies to the situation and justifies revoking Meyer's PhD. He holds a PhD from that university and was found to have committed scientific fraud.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions are all about the details and the judgment in the conclusion. Find the answer that correctly reflects those details to justify that judgment and you're golden.

Incorrect. This answer is about hiring practices, not revoking degrees.