Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 2

Incorrect. If anything, this answer cuts against regulating the internet, thus weakening the argument.

Incorrect. This answer establishes regulation as, at best, a partial solution, thus cutting against the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Usual - It's good for people to have unregulated info (e.g., the internet)
Problem - The internet has a lot of misinformation, which is hard to spot, and not Accurate information distinguishable from misinformation → not Accurate info useful.
Solution - Regulate the internet

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions task us with justifying the judgement in the conclusion based on the details in the premises. It's usually best to start with that judgment and figure out why the author believes it's justified.

Here, the judgment is that the internet should be regulated, so that's what the principle needs to justify. Why does the author believe that's the case? Because there's a lot of hard-to-distinguish misinformation on the internet, and that makes the accurate information useless.

So our normal anticipation for the principle would be along the lines of:
If something is getting in the way of accurate info being useful, then it should be regulated.

However, there's another issue in this case that could play into the correct answer—a shift between the premises and the conclusion. The conclusion talks about regulation as a solution to a problem, but there's nothing backing that up—the premises are about preventing misinformation from clouding the waters on the internet. Another avenue that this principle could take is to tie regulation into the solution to that problem:
Regulations can result in people being able to figure out what information is accurate and what isn't.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes regulation as a viable solution to the problem of misinformation on the internet. If regulations can allow people to distinguish misinformation from accurate information, then it removes a barrier to that information being useful, and the conclusion that there should be regulations is helped.

Key Takeaway:
Our usual answer anticipation in a Strengthen (Principle) question will tie the details from the premises into the judgment in the conclusion. However, when there's a new term that shows up in the conclusion, it's also possible that the answer will tie that term into the concepts from the premises. Be on the lookout for both!

Incorrect. The argument is about distinguishing information and misinformation, not overlooking certain information, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer argues against regulation, so it undermines the conclusion.