Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 3 · Question 12

Incorrect. This answer is too weak ("whenever possible") to justify the conclusion ("should never").

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Comparison - Dried parsley is less tasty and healthful than fresh parsley
Judgment - Dried parsley should never be used in cooking

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions ask us to justify the judgment in the conclusion based on the details in the premises.

Here, the judgment in the conclusion is that dried parsley should never be used in cooking. This is based on it being less tasty and healthful than fresh parsley. So the principle connecting those ideas is that if there is a tastier and/or more healthful option available, then an ingredient shouldn't be used.

Note two things about our anticipated principle. First, we phrased it around what shouldn't be used, not what should be, to better match the conclusion. However, since the conclusion is based on using the fresh parsley, an answer could be phrased in a way to say that those ingredients should be used. Second, note that we said "and/or" when referring to the two points of comparison. Either of those points of comparison, individually, could justify the conclusion by themselves, even though both are mentioned. Don't feel the need to incorporate all details in the correct answer—as long as it justifies the conclusion, it can serve as the correct answer. That said, don't shy away from an answer that brings up all or multiple details from the premises.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is strong enough to justify the conclusion ("should ever"). It also justifies not using dried parsley because it's not the tastiest ingredient—fresh parsley is tastier. While this answer doesn't address healthfulness, it does establish that a detail established in the premises is enough to justify the conclusion, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
The shorter the stimulus, the tricker they're going to get with the answer choices since there's less place for difficulty to be added to the stimulus. Be sure to read the answers carefully so that you don't fall for a subtle trap!

Incorrect. First, this answer reverses the logic of the stimulus—establishing that something that fits the description of the conclusion also fits the details of the premises. Second, the stimulus brings up points of comparison (less tasty, less healthful), not absolute ones as this answer does. Both of these reasons are individually enough to eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. Tempting! However, similar to (C), this answer brings up absolute descriptors—not tasty, not healthful—whereas the stimulus only establishes relative descriptors—far less tasty, far less healthful.

Incorrect. Being inferior doesn't justify that they should never be used—maybe cost concerns would justify using an inferior ingredient because the cost change is great but the impact on the food is minor.