Reading comp PrepTest 137 · Section 1 · Question 3

Incorrect. The argument never discusses relaxation (the closest is reading for pleasure, but those two things aren't the same), so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Analogy - Tourists travel to enlarge understanding, so it's better to travel to fewer places for a longer time each.
Analogy - Reading is like traveling.
Conclusion - It's better to read fewer books but dive in deeper to each one.

Answer Anticipation:
If this were a Methods of Reasoning question, the answer would clearly highlight that the argument relies on an analogy to justify a conclusion in a similar situation. And when we're dealing with analogies, it's important to understand how the elements of the analogy line up.

Luckily, here, the argument does a pretty good job of lining those elements up for us. It directly relates readers to travelers, and it sets out that they have the same goal—enlarging understanding.

From that, it concludes a recommendation for readers based on a conclusion it draws for travelers—that they're better off traveling to fewer places but spending more time in each place. Looking at the argument in that analogy, we can see that the analogy relies on this method of travel—spending more time in fewer places—helping tourists achieve the stated goal—enlarging understanding.

Since the argument doesn't establish that that's the case, the correct answer will do so—for either side of the analogy! It will connect spending more time on one item (either a book or a place) with enlarging understanding.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the "method" to the goal—spending more time in one place/on one book and gaining a larger understanding. In doing so, it strengthens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies on an analogy, make sure you understand how the elements of each side of the analogy line up. And from there, look for answers that either strengthen the connection between the analogized elements, or that strengthen either side's connection to the conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer compares the two sides of the analogy, establishing a difference between them. If anything, this weakens the analogy. (It doesn't because of how the elements are lined up and what this difference highlights, but an argument that relies on an analogy is generally going to be weakened by a relevant difference, so you should have eliminated this answer as soon as you saw it bring one up.)

Incorrect. This answer is conflating reading and traveling—the two sides of the analogy—and so it doesn't really help the argument. The stimulus isn't about reading about travel, it relates the act of reading to the act of travel.

Incorrect. The stimulus talks about readers and tourists generally, so a few tourists who have a different goal than is stated won't affect the argument (and, if anything, it'd weaken it by questioning whether an element of the analogy is true).