Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 20

Incorrect. Very close! This conclusion can be justified, but the relevant sufficient condition here is that the pranker "believes" the prank will cause the victim harm, not that they "should have realized" it.

Incorrect. The principle only justifies not playing the joke, so this answer's conclusion can't be drawn based on it. This answer would be justified by an illegal negation of the principle.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Shows contempt for victim OR Pranker believes it'll cause victim significant harm →
Shouldn't play practical joke

Answer Anticipation:
Ah, a much more straightforward stimulus in this Must Be True (Principle) question compared to the one a few questions ago! Though this might mean that the answers will be more difficult . . .

The most important thing to note about this principle heading into the answers is that the only conclusion that can be justified based on it is that one shouldn't play a practical joke. We'll eliminate anything that doesn't conclude that immediately, and then compare any answer that does to the sufficient conditions.

Answer Explanation:
This answer concludes that a joke shouldn't be played ("it would be wrong"), so the principle can justify it. And it notes that the pranker believes the prank could cause harm, so it meets the second sufficient condition and is thus justified by the principle.

Key Takeaway:
When a Must Be True (Principle) question this deep into the section appears to have a relatively straightforward conditional, be careful! The incorrect answers are likely to be very close to correct, and minor details are going to throw them off.

Incorrect. Another very close answer! This appears to conclude that a practical joke shouldn't be played because it shows contempt. However, be careful—the stimulus states that the sufficient condition is that the joke would show contempt for the person being pranked. This answer only establishes that it would show contempt "for someone," so it fails to meet that mark.

Incorrect. While harm was done, there's no indication that the prankster here believed that the harm would happen, so it doesn't meet the sufficient condition.