Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 3 · Question 4

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
S: Mountain lions (protected) are hunting bighorn sheep (protected), so we should let that play out.

M: No, we should protect the sheep.

Answer Anticipation:
Going through Sam's statement quickly to see what Meli discusses, we can see that she doesn't disagree with the classification of the lions or sheep as protected, or that the lions are hunting the sheep. However, she does think that Sam's recommendation that nature is allowed to "take its course" is nonsense, and that the sheep should be protected, even at the expense of the mountain lions. That's the point at issue between them, so we should look for that answer.

Answer Explanation:
Sam believes that humans should let nature take its course, not intervening. Meli, on the other hand, thinks that's nonsense and humans should ensure the sheep population survives.

Key Takeaway:
When the arguments are short in Point at Issue questions, go through one point by point to see which elements the other speaker has an opinion on.

Incorrect. While this principle may underlie Meli's argument (to limit the mountain lions to ensure the bighorns survive), Sam doesn't discuss losing individuals vs. a species, so this answer is out of scope of his argument.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses the ease of preserving predators vs. prey.

Incorrect. Meli likely disagrees with this answer, as she believes the mountain lion population can be limited to protect the bighorns. Sam, on the other hand, doesn't discuss the effects of limiting the mountain lion population, so this answer is out of scope of his argument.

Incorrect. Sam is noncommittal about whether the bighorns will survive—he hopes they do, but he's not sure—so this answer is out of scope of his argument.