Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 21

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Conclusion - Checkers's refusal to accept Marty's coupons was motivated by a desire to hurt Marty's.
Premises - Accepting the coupon would have cost nothing and made some of Checkers's customers happy.

Answer Anticipation:
There was a lot of information about this coupon promotion, and when that happens, it's easy to get lost in the details. Instead of getting bogged down, however, you should seek out the conclusion and work backwards from there.

Here, the last sentence is the conclusion ("This shows that . . . ")—Checkers refused to accept the coupons to hurt a competitor. Why does the Econ Professor believe that? Because it would have cost them nothing to accept the coupons and some potential customers would have been satisfied. However, there's nothing linking those details to any particular motive. Maybe Checkers didn't have a system in place to accept such a coupon, or they didn't believe Marty's would actually reimburse them. Maybe it's just the principle of the matter.

In any case, the Professor makes a jump between details of the impact of the promotion on Checkers and its customers to what Checkers's motive was, and so the correct answer will have to connect those.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the established impact of the coupons on Checkers to their motive of hurting the competitor. By connecting the premise to the conclusion, this answer validates it, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When the stimulus has too much going on, start by identifying the conclusion, and then paring back everything except what directly leads to it. It'll make everything a lot easier to manage!

Incorrect. This answer is a reversal of the connection we're looking for, basing a conclusion about what is true of accepting the coupons based on the motive. Since it isn't established that Checkers does want to hurt Marty's (it's concluded, not established), this answer doesn't necessarily apply.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that someone in a similar situation had the motive ascribed to Checkers, but it doesn't establish that it was Checkers for sure, so this answer doesn't guarantee the conclusion. Note that if this answer applied specifically to the current situation instead of any situation where a competitor issued a coupon, then it could be correct.

Incorrect. This answer would allow a conclusion that a business helps a competitor, not that it hurts it.

Incorrect. These coupons would have enabled Checkers to satisfy its potential customers, so this answer doesn't apply to the stimulus.