Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 4 · Question 12

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
The pharaohs spent a lot of money on pyramids, but it wasn't frivolous because it helped them maintain power without use of force.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts by describing a phenomenon and then pivots ("however") to an explanation that it says isn't applicable ("not mere frivolousness") for a certain reason ("for if"). Explanations for phenomena are generally conclusions, and while this pivot statement (the statement in question) is about an explanation that doesn't apply, the Historian doesn't pivot again to an explanation she believes does apply, so that's our main point. This is backed up by it being followed by a clause that starts with "for," which is an indicator word telling us that what is about to be stated is a premise supporting whatever comes before it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the role of the statement in question. It is a conclusion, and it is purportedly justified (in other words, the Historian believes it's justified) by that final statement, which does suggest a psychological effect of the structures (maintenance of loyalty without the use of military force).

Key Takeaway:
Usually, phenomenon/explanation passages have the author's explanation as the conclusion. However, sometimes, the author's conclusion will be her opinion on another explanation—including that it's not plausible.

Incorrect. That first statement is the witnessed phenomenon, not a conclusion to be supported. It would make no sense to say that the pyramids weren't frivolous, so the early pharaohs spent as much on them as on roads and irrigation.

Incorrect. That claim is introduced with "for," telling us it supports the statement in question.

Incorrect. First, this principle isn't mentioned in the stimulus. Second, the discussion of military force was used to support the statement in question, not the other way around.

Incorrect. There's no indication in the argument that resources were scarce, and it's specifically noted that the structures in question were largely ceremonial, so they couldn't have military utility. Additionally, it's a conclusion, not a premise.