Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 10

Incorrect. First, the opposing point presents a recommendation, not a problem. Second, the argument raises problems with learning history's lessons, it doesn't solve them.

Incorrect. Since the argument refutes the claim that we should learn the lessons of history—after all, they're nearly impossible to learn and not useful even if we can—it's not compatible with it.

Incorrect. The argument goes into reasons for why the advice shouldn't be followed, so it doesn't simply assume it's false.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
People—"You should learn the lessons of history."
Rebuttal—This is a problem because:
(1) It's hard to actually know what the past was like, and . . .
(2) Even if we did, it'd be nearly impossible to learn its lessons, and . . .
(3) Even if we did, we couldn't apply them since present/future situations are different

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever an argument starts by introducing what "[p]eople" believe, that's almost always going to be the opposing point. And since the statement in question here is that belief, then the answer is most likely going to reflect that it's an opposing point. However, as with all rebuttals, we need to identify whether the author of this argument thinks the opposing point is wrong, or just unsupported.

Here, the author doesn't clearly state her opinion of the opposing point - interestingly, the conclusion is more implied. However, the author does walk through a series of problems with learning the lessons of history. First, it's hard to know what the past was like. And second, even if you could, it'd be "nearly impossible" to learn lessons from it. And third, even if you did, you couldn't apply them to modern situations which are fundamentally different.

That's a lot of reasons that it's not worth it to learn the lessons of the past, and they all attack the conclusion, not the argument being made for it (in fact, the reasons that we should learn from the past aren't presented in the stimulus—the opposing point has no premises). So the opposing point here is refuted, not questioned, and we should find an answer reflecting that.

Answer Explanation:
The argument refutes the recommendation that we should learn histories lessons by saying that doing so is nearly impossible and not useful even if we could, so this answer reflects the role of that initial statement.

Key Takeaway:
First, identifying that the statement in question is a part of the opposing point can go a long way to getting to the answer. However, note whether the author thinks the opposing point is wrong or unproven—the difference between the two can be the difference between two answers!

Incorrect. First, a statement that's written into an argument is almost never an assumption (unless specifically highlighted as one). Second, the truth of the opposing point isn't necessary for the author's argument to hold—in fact, it being untrue is.