Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 2 · Question 25

Incorrect. This answer connects a positive impression with personality, not morality, so this answer doesn't strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. Don't talk yourself into this answer! First, putting morality under scrutiny doesn't guarantee that the professed morality is shared by the jurors. Second, this answer splits the jurors from the rest of the population by highlighting a difference in the way they viewed personal moral codes, which, if anything, would make what happens in a court not representative of wider conceptions of morality.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Background - Ancient Greek courts didn't feature cross-examination or jury instructions
Intermediate conclusion - Litigants needed to impress jurors
Main point - What was said in the courtroom is a good proxy for understanding the morality of citizens in Ancient Greece

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts with some background information about Ancient Greece that ends up supporting an intermediate conclusion ("thus") that goes on to support a main point ("For this reason"), so we can strengthen this argument by strengthening the connection between support and conclusion at either step.

Let's start with the first one. There, the fact that courts didn't feature cross-examination or jury instructions is used to support the conclusion that litigants needed to impress jurors. While that logic isn't airtight, it's not a terrible argument. An answer that connects a lack of these features to the importance of making a good impression will strengthen this argument, but it seems unlikely that an answer will just connect those.

How about the jump between the intermediate conclusion and main point? There, the need to impress jurors is used to support the conclusion that what litigants said in the courtroom can be used to understand the morality of Greek citizens at the time. However, that's assuming that the litigants who are engaged in this oratory believed that they would most impress jurors by demonstrating morality that was shared by the citizens of Ancient Greece. There are plenty of other ways that one might go about impressing the jurors—demonstrating intelligence, making a compelling case, charming them—and so this is a much larger gap. Anything that connects impressing these jurors with demonstrating shared morality will therefore strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects a positive impression with shared morality. Since the litigants would be the ones talking, if they believed that professing morality that was shared with other citizens would impress people, then what they said would be more likely to reflect those shared morals, strengthening the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen questions with intermediate conclusions can be strengthened by adding support to the assumption made either between the premises and intermediate conclusion, or intermediate conclusion and main point. You should anticipate both, but there's generally one gap that seems "bigger" than the other, so focus on that one.

Incorrect. There's no established or inherent connection between economic class and morality, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer avoids the discussion of morality completely, so it doesn't strengthen an argument focused on it.