Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 1 · Question 9

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Too much junk food is making people sick. If it cost more, people would eat less of it. So taxing it would benefit public health.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus opens with a prediction about the beneficial effect that a given change would have. A prediction that notes the impact of a change, especially when the author states their opinion on that impact ("benefit public health"), is likely to be a conclusion.

After that, the Doctor notes something that is currently true, so this is almost certainly a premise of the argument. However, the final statement is also a prediction about what a certain change would have, so we need to determine which of our two predictions is the main point, and which is the intermediate conclusion. Since the first statement has a judgment and the last statement doesn't, it's likely that the first statement is the main point, but let's see which supports which to make a final call.

Comparing those two statements, it makes a lot more sense for the last statement to support the first than the other way around. If raising the price of junk food would result in people making healthier dietary decisions, then it makes sense that taxing the food would benefit public health. The reverse doesn't flow as an argument, so that first sentence is our main point.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the first statement, which is backed up by the fact about current dietary/health trends and the implication of that fact raised later in the argument. It's a prediction about a beneficial effect of a given change, all of which tend to be conclusions.

Key Takeaway:
Predictions tend to be conclusions. Predictions about effects of given changes tend to be conclusions. Opinionated statements tend to be conclusions. Using these trends can give us some footing in these Main Point questions.

Incorrect. This is an unsupported statement of fact about the current state of affairs, so it's a premise.

Incorrect. This answer is an intermediate conclusion, supported by the current state of affairs but going on to support the conclusion that a certain change would be beneficial to public health.

Incorrect. This answer is a principle/assumption/implication of the intermediate conclusion, connecting it to the main point.

Incorrect. First, the argument never explicitly states that junk food should be taxed, just that it would be beneficial if it did. Also, the argument concludes that taxing junk food would benefit public health—there's no uncertainty about it, as this answer choice suggests.