Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 2 · Question 21

Incorrect. Both speakers only talk about whether the corporate leadership at PI believe they'd lose, not whether the speakers themselves think that was the likely outcome.

Incorrect. Neither speaker assesses the accuracy of a belief of losing at trial.

Incorrect. This answer is a necessary assumption for Simon's argument, so he'd agree with this. However, Justine doesn't discuss legal fees at all, or cost-effectiveness, so it's out of scope of her argument.

Incorrect. This answer is the inverse of answer choice (C) and wrong for largely the same reasons.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
J: PI paid a million dollars rather than go to trial, so they probably thought they'd lose.

S: Who knows if they thought they'd lose, but they probably thought that the legal fees would add up, so settling was the most cost-effective decision.

Answer Anticipation:
Justine's argument here is relatively short, so let's go through it point by point to see if Simon disagrees with any of those points.

She starts by stating that PI settled a lawsuit for $1m. Simon explicitly agrees that they settled, though he's silent on the specific dollar amount. She then states that this settlement is evidence that the leadership at PI expected to lose. That has two parts to it—the corporate leaders expected to lose in court, and the settlement is evidence that they believed it.

For the first one—the corporate leaders believed they would lose—Simon says that he's unsure of that one. However, he definitely disagrees that the settlement is evidence that they expected to lose. He thinks it's at least as likely that they actually just thought it'd be cheaper to settle than pay legal fees in court.

So the point at issue here is whether the settlement is evidence that PI's leadership thought they'd lose the lawsuit.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the point at issue between the speakers—whether the settlement is evidence that the leadership thought the lawsuit was a loser. Justine agrees with this statement in saying that the settlement indicates that they thought they'd lose. Simon disagrees with this statement, bringing up a separate consideration.

Key Takeaway:
For Point at Issue questions, if one argument has relatively few parts to it, go through it point by point to see if you can ID that point at issue! Having this as a set process can help keep you moving forward on these questions.