Reading comp PrepTest 137 · Section 1 · Question 18

Incorrect. This answer doesn't apply to anarchist novels, all of which depict wholesale violence.

Incorrect. Be careful! All anarchist novels depict wholesale violence, and so this answer applies to them. However, the conclusion is about novels that do "more harm than good," and this answer is about novels that do "more good than harm." Yep, that's reversed, and so this answer is wrong.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about sufficient conditions for banning a novel, and this answer establishes necessary conditions for doing so, so it's a reversal.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Anarchist novel → Subversive outlook AND Depiction of violence
Therefore - Permissible to ban an anarchist novel that does more harm than good

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is a bit more complex that most Strengthen (Principle) questions in that it adds in a new condition (doing more harm than good), but we still want to justify this conclusion based on the premises.

The conclusion states that it's permissible to ban a type of novel when it does more harm than good. Why does it believe that it's permissible to ban such a novel? Because these anarchist novels all are subversive and violent, both objectionable characteristics.

In order to justify the conclusion, then, we should connect those characteristics to the judgment (and remember that we don't need to connect all premises, just any premise):
If a novel is subversive or violent (or objectionable), then it's permissible to ban it if it does more harm than good.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice applies to any novel that has two or more objectionable characteristics, and that includes all anarchist novels (which are subversive and violent, both classified as objectionable in the stimulus). It justifies a conclusion of banning them if they do more harm than good, as the conclusion states. This answer, therefore, justifies the censor's reasoning, so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:As argument structures get more complex and the details get a bit harder to juggle, it's important to rely on the strategies that we've developed through practice. Here, the addition of an extra condition in the conclusion could easily throw us off, but if we just apply our Strengthen (Principle) question, we can build a strong enough anticipation to get us through.

Incorrect. This answer establishes a necessary condition for banning a book ("only if"), and we're looking for an answer that establishes sufficient conditions for doing so.