Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 11

Incorrect. The stimulus never says that Paulsen tried to position cars as works of art.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Nan Paulsen's car reviews didn't reveal important truths about culture, so they can't count as criticism and shouldn't have received a criticism reward.

Answer Anticipation:
In this Strengthen (Principle) question, we need to connect the judgment in the conclusion (that Paulsen's car reviews shouldn't have received a criticism award because her reviews aren't criticism) with the basis for that judgment.

So why does the Critic believe it's "inappropriate" for Paulsen to get the award? Because cars aren't art and so don't reveal important truths about the culture that made them. That's an assumption on what criticism is, though—it's assuming that it needs to reveal important truths about the culture that produced the object being discussed. Since the argument never makes that connection, the answer choice will have to.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the judgment—that reviews shouldn't be considered criticism and thus Paulsen shouldn't have received the award—to the reasoning why—cars don't reveal important truths. It thus justifies the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions ask us to connect the rationale to the conclusion—nothing more!

Incorrect. There's no discussion of Paulsen's motives in writing these reviews, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. We don't know if Paulsen considers herself a critic, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of what we're looking for—that writing that doesn't reveal important truths can't be criticism.