Logical reasoning PrepTest 135 · Section 2 · Question 8

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Background - The government demolished a former naval base that had a bunch of facilities the community could have used
Concession - What the government did was legal
Conclusion - The government's actions were inefficient and immoral

Answer Anticipation:
Caldwell's argument reaches a judgment about the actions of a government. When a judgment is drawn—here, that an action was inefficient/immoral—the argument needs to establish a principle that allows that judgment to be made. In fact, this argument would fit very well in a Strengthen (Principle) question, with a correct answer establishing what makes an action inefficient/immoral!

Caldwell fails to establish this principle, and so her argument is flawed. The correct answer should highlight that she doesn't establish what makes an action inefficient and immoral. It may address her premise—that an alternative action would "benefit[] everyone".

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the disconnect between Caldwell's premise—that not demolishing the base would have benefited everyone—and her conclusion—that the action was immoral. If an action can be moral even when an alternative would have provided everyone with benefit, then the government's action here might be moral. This answer brings up something Caldwell's argument doesn't consider—a moral action that prevents an alternative that benefits everyone—so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
Conclusions that reach judgments about actions require principles establishing sufficient conditions for that judgment to be drawn. When such a principle is missing from an argument, it's likely to show up in the correct answer in some form.

Incorrect. Caldwell's argument doesn't do this—she uses the consequences (facilities that could have benefited everyone are now gone) to judge the morality of an action.

Incorrect. Caldwell only talks about one specific case, so this answer stating that she assumes the government "never" acts efficiently is too strong to reflect her logic.

Incorrect. While Caldwell believes the government's action was both inefficient and immoral, she never connects the first as establishing the latter. She says that the action was "not only inefficient but immoral"—this answer would be potentially correct if, instead, the conclusion said the government's action was "inefficient and thus immoral."

Incorrect. Demolishing the base and not demolishing the base cover all possibilities. Sure, there are many possibilities that can come from each of these, but the base is either demolished or it isn't.