Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 3 · Question 18

Incorrect. This might have been necessary if the conclusion stated that the commutes of the employees would increase in length, but it's quite possible that the current commutes are also longer than 30 minutes.

Incorrect. The reasoning behind the move is out of scope since that reasoning doesn't affect commute times.

Incorrect. The feelings of the employees are out of scope in an argument about their commute times.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer might be necessary for an argument that concluded commute times would increase, but it doesn't—it simply states that commute times will be over 30 minutes. That could be a continuation of the current state of affairs.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Proposed change - Acme's HQ is moving from Milltown to Ocean View
Current state of affairs - Acme's employees can't afford housing without 30 minutes of Ocean View
Conclusion - Acme's employees will have to commute over 30 minutes

Answer Anticipation:
That conclusion is about the future—what "will" happen after the move. Whenever an argument draws a prediction about the future, we should check to see if it's based on what is currently true, or what has been true. A jump from those to what will happen is a flawed one, as something could change.

Here, the premise about affording housing is about the current state of affairs—it doesn't state the employees won't be able to afford housing, but rather that they currently can't afford housing. Since this argument is basing that conclusion on the future on this premise about the present, there's a gap in the argument.

When there's a gap such as this one, the argument is assuming there won't be relevant changes. Maybe the company will fire all the employees and rehire new ones who live closer to the new HQ. Maybe it'll give everyone a housing stipend in order to afford housing close to the office. Any relevant change will undermine the argument, so we need to find an answer that rules one of these relevant changes out.

Answer Explanation:
The argument bases its conclusion about what will happen based on what is currently true. Any answer that highlighted a relevant change that could accompany this move could serve as a necessary assumption, as this one does. If there is a significant pay raise for each employee during this move, they may be able to afford housing closer to the company's new location that is currently out of their budget.

Key Takeaway:
Conclusions about the future based on what has been or is currently true are flawed. They ignore that something could change ahead of that future date.