Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 1 · Question 25

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Change → Motive
Harsh criticism → Unpleasant criticism → Motive
Therefore: Change → Harsh criticism

Answer Anticipation:
Arguments that talk about what's required are just as conditional as arguments that use language such as "if" and "only." Here, there are a series of connections drawn, showing that change requires motive, and that harsh criticism guarantees that motive. However, in concluding that change requires harsh criticism ("only harsh criticism"), the argument commits an illegal reversal. Harsh criticism can provide that motive, but it's a sufficient condition for it, not a necessary one. The correct answer should highlight this conditional logic flaw.

Answer Explanation:
Harsh criticism is established as being sufficient to provide a motive for change. In concluding that harsh criticism is the only thing that can provide that motive, the argument is confusing this sufficient condition for motive to change for a necessary one, and so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
An argument that talks about requirements is talking conditional logic. Requirements are necessary conditions.

Incorrect. The motive behind the criticism is out of scope—the motive the criticism provides to the person being criticized is what is relevant here.

Incorrect. The argument never treats motive as sufficient to drive change. The premise about change talks about what is required for it, and the conclusion similarly addresses a necessary condition for change.

Incorrect. There's no shift here—each instance of motive is related to changing, not failing to change.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't commit an absence of evidence flaw. While there is an opposing point that is being rebutted, the Counselor provides evidence supporting her conclusion, not just evidence that an opposing argument is flawed.