Logical reasoning PrepTest 135 · Section 2 · Question 21

Incorrect. The stimulus is about engaging in one dangerous activity repeatedly, not a number of dangerous activities, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. While 10 times might be a bit arbitrary, it is a number that suggests the activity was done repeatedly, so it's not an issue that the argument fails to consider attempts 2-9.

Incorrect. While the one group did parachute once, the argument doesn't rely on them not being terrified before their first jump.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't make any statements of opinion as to whether repeatedly exposing yourself to a terrifying situation to get over that fear is a good thing or not, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Example - Over 50% of people who parachuted once were terrified of it. Under 1% of those who have parachuted over 10 times are terrified by it.
Conclusion - Repeatedly doing something is a good way to get over a fear of it.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is about people who are scared of an activity repeating that activity in order to get over the fear. In order to support that, the argument would need to show people who started out terrified, did something several times, and then weren't terrified of it.

Does it? Not at all. The stimulus compares a group that parachuted only once to those who have parachuted over 10 times, showing a massive reduction in the percentage who are terrified of the experience. That's not the same group, and they are likely different in a key way. That group who has parachuted repeatedly likely wasn't terrified of the experience the first time, since someone terrified by an experience is not likely to willingly repeat it.

Since this argument doesn't draw the right comparison, the example it cites doesn't support the conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the relevant difference between the two groups that are compared to support the conclusion. The first group isn't relevant to the conclusion since they only parachuted once, and the second group who isn't terrified doesn't prove that repeating the activity ended their fear because there's no evidence they were afraid to begin with.

Key Takeaway:
Spend some time thinking about what evidence would support a conclusion. Comparing that to the premises will often make it easier to find out how it falls short.