Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 12

Incorrect. To reach the conclusion that some books are flawed, it's not necessary to know that others aren't. All gardening books could be flawed and this argument's conclusion could still hold.

Incorrect. What gardeners should do is outside the scope of this argument about flaws in books about gardening.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
GPP has some books that don't talk about hot/cold composting but recommend composting.
Book that recommends composting without covering basics → Flawed
Therefore - Some GPP books are flawed

Answer Anticipation:
Frequently, when an argument presents a conditional rule ("if it does not . . . ") and then applies it to a specific scenario, the flaw is that it doesn't guarantee that the scenario triggers the sufficient condition.

Here, that sufficient condition is that a book recommends composting without covering the basics of it. However, when talking about the books from GPP, the argument establishes that they recommend composting without explaining the difference between hot and cold composting. There's no indication that that's a basic consideration of the practice! Maybe hot/cold composting is quite an advanced topic.

In order to reach the conclusion, the argument needs to establish that the sufficient condition of the principle it's attempting to apply is met. Here, there's a jump between that condition—not explaining the basics—and what is established about the books in question—they don't explain hot/cold composting. The correct answer, then, should establish that hot/cold composting is a basic concept of composting.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the topic skipped over in GPP's books that recommend composting are part of the basics. If hot/cold composting isn't a part of the basics of composting, then the argument falls apart, so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument applies a principle/conditional to a specific case, chances are it's flawed because there's a key shift that prevents the information established about the specific case to guarantee the principle applies. The correct answer in these cases will address that gap between what is known about the specific case and that triggering condition of the conditional.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish that hot/cold composting is a part of the basics. It's possible that they're an advanced concept, and that explains why someone who knows about it also knows the basics.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of the principle from the stimulus, so it's not necessary for the argument to work.