Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 2 · Question 7

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that a suit will stay in style for a while, whereas a trendy hat won't. This answer is about how durable the clothing is, not how long it'll stay in style, so it's out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Classic suit - In style for years, pay more
Trendy hat - In style for two years max, pay less

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally provide a scenario and a judgment, and the argument asks us to find a principle that justified the judgment based on the details of the scenario.

This stimulus is a little different—it presents two scenarios with different judgments, and it asks us to find a principle that justifies each of them. As such, we should identify what is similar about them so that we can unify that into a single principle.

And here, while the examples reach opposite conclusions, we can see that they do so based on the same consideration. When thinking about the price to pay for an item of clothing, you should take its longevity into account. The longer something is in style, the more you should pay for it; the shorter, the less. The correct answer should highlight this connection.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the connection between how long the item will be fashionable/how long one plans to wear it and the cost one should be willing to pay for it. The longer it'll be worn, the more one should pay, just like that suit; and so things that will go out of style quickly and thus be put in the closet should be purchased for less.

Key Takeaway:
When two examples are used to prove the same point, identify what is similar about them. That similarity will define the generalization that they support.

Incorrect. Availability is out of scope—there's no indication that either suits or hats of varying quality are available, and it's certainly not raised as the relevant consideration.

Incorrect. After the first line saying that the generalization applies to purchases of both types of clothing, the argument doesn't circle back to it. It's a throwaway line to broaden the application of the stimulus, but it's not a guiding detail, as the argument quickly shifts to discussing style.

Incorrect. First, a trendy hat is casual attire? Someone hasn't been to the Kentucky Derby. (Just kidding.) In all seriousness, the relevant consideration isn't office vs. casual, but rather how long something will stay in style. Based on the stimulus, the author would recommend paying less for a suit that was going out of style next year and more on a trendy hat that would always stay fresh.