Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 1 · Question 10

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Examples (many) - People with miserable working conditions resisting technology that would improve those conditions
Conclusion - Fear of change determines behavior more than comfort/safety

Answer Anticipation:
This argument very much falls into the Phenomenon/Explanation structure that we've seen so frequently. When that happens, we should always consider how alternative explanations would affect the argument. And to weaken an argument that concludes one explanation, we'd look for an answer that suggests an alternative is the true explanation. Here, there is even an alternative mentioned as not being as strong as the concluded explanation—desire for comfort/safety.

And that comparative conclusion raises another possible area for a correct answer. Since it concludes that one thing is a "more powerful" determinant than something else, we have to consider whether that comparison is warranted by the information in the stimulus—is there enough information about the two determinants to say one is stronger than the other?

The answer to that is, "No!" The argument establishes that people resisting this technological change are working in conditions that would be alleviated by the new technology, but it doesn't note whether there are any negative effects for this group in adopting new technologies. If the new technologies change something in a way that threatens the people's safety or comfort, then the conclusion about fear of change/social inertia would fall apart. For example, if these new technologies automate away jobs, that would threaten people's comfort/safety.

Answer Explanation:
This answer lines up perfectly with our anticipation. By providing evidence that the noted phenomenon has an alternative explanation—one that brings up information about a downside of a change that the argument doesn't discuss—this answer suggests the provided explanation is incorrect, undermining the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument concludes an explanation for a given phenomenon, start to think about alternatives. And when an argument compares things—especially if you can frame it as a pro/con list—start to think about other points of comparison that weren't raised in the argument.

Incorrect. There's no indication that these new technologies would present a new challenge—maybe, as noted, they'd just make people's jobs less miserable!

Incorrect. This doesn't undercut the "many examples" where workers didn't embrace it—a phenomenon still in need of an explanation.

Incorrect. If anything, by showing that a slower change isn't met by as much resistance, this answer supports the idea that social inertia plays a role in making people wary of faster change.

Incorrect. In removing an alternative reason to oppose the change—it lowers productivity—this answer, if anything, strengthens the argument.