Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 4 · Question 19

Incorrect. While this answer does establish a difference, it's not a relevant one. Since the comparison between the situations is how the payout compares to the "investment," the amount spent on that initial "investment" doesn't change that balance.

Incorrect. Another answer that establishes a difference that isn't relevant to the argument and is thus incorrect. The profits of the companies doesn't change the cost/benefit analysis of a purchase since the pieces of that analysis were established independently of the profit margins. If the payout for insurance hadn't been established, then an answer such as this one could have been correct.

Incorrect. Both elements of the comparison here have their cost/benefit balance established as being negative, so this answer doesn't apply.

Incorrect. This is already taken into account with the cost/benefit analysis that reports the average payout, so pointing it out can't affect the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Economists: The average lotto payoff is much lower than a ticket cost, so buying a ticket is a waste of money.
Professor: The same can be said of insurance, which is a good use of money, so the Economists' argument is bad.

Answer Anticipation:
Since the Professor's conclusion is about the reasoning in the Economists' argument, it's important to understand both arguments here.

Starting with the Economists, they do an analysis of the expected value of a lotto ticket and find it to be lacking—they cost more than they pay out. From that, they conclude that buying lotto tickets is a bad use of money.

The Professor argues that their reasoning is faulty—in other words, the Economists' premises don't establish their conclusion. What is used to support that? A comparison between lotto tickets and insurance, both of which have an expected average payout much lower than the cost of the policy. The Professor points out that the logic of the opposing point would lead to a conclusion that "nobody would argue" for in a similar situation.

When Strengthen/Weaken questions feature arguments based on comparisons, answers generally bring up similarities or differences, depending on how the argument works and the question type. Here, we're trying to weaken an argument that relies on lotto tickets and insurance being similar. To weaken an argument that relies on two things being similar, we should look for a relevant difference.

While that's enough of an anticipation to get the answer correct, since this argument reaches a conclusion about an opposing point, we can do a bit more work to get a little bit more specific with our anticipation. The opposing point concludes that buying a lotto ticket is a waste of money because of economic considerations, but that ignores other potential benefits of buying a lotto ticket (maybe people enjoy having one, and so some of the purchase cost can be said to be worth it because of that enjoyment). Since the opposing point argues that something isn't worth it for economic considerations and thus ignores other types of benefits, we can anticipate that the correct answer will point out a relevant difference between insurance and lotto tickets that highlights a non-economic benefit of insurance.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a relevant difference between lotto tickets and insurance—insurance provides a non-economic benefit (well-being) to a greater degree than lotto tickets do. This difference means that the analogous situation relied on by the Professor isn't analogous in all relevant ways, thus undermining the use of that comparison to draw a conclusion, weakening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When a Weaken (or Strengthen) question relies crucially on a comparison, the correct answer will often bring up more points of comparison. In a Weaken question that relies on two things being similar, the correct answer will frequently be a relevant difference.