Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 4 · Question 25

Incorrect. Pauline agrees with this in stating that electrical costs will skyrocket—if other sources could be quickly ramped up to "compensate" for the decrease in supply, then costs wouldn't skyrocket. It can appear as if Roger agrees with this answer, but, in fact, in suggesting that new sources of energy must be found, not current energy sources increased, he's on the other side of the fence here. We wouldn't say this answer is a point at issue, but it's closer to that than a point of agreement.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
NA/Flawed

Question Type:
Point of Agreement

Stimulus Summary:
P: Environmentalists say to save the salmon, we must breach the dams. But because of population growth, doing so would make energy costs go up.

R: The dams are already at capacity, so we have to find more energy sources regardless.

Answer Anticipation:
Careful here! The question stem asks us to find a point of agreement between the two speakers, not a point at issue. This question type is much less common than Point at Issue questions, but it does show up, and there is usually a trap answer that highlights a point at issue between the two speakers.

Here, Pauline starts her statement by discussing what environmentalists claim about salmon—two topics that Roger doesn't address.

She then goes on to say that the region has a growing population and thus breaching the dams would drive up electrical costs. Roger believes that the dams are already at capacity, and thus breaching them or no, there needs to be more sources of energy found. While these two points don't directly address each other, they highlight that the two agree there's a lot of demand for electricity and the current amount available could be problematic. We should dig into any answer that highlights this topic.

Answer Explanation:
Pauline believes that breaching the dams will cause electrical costs to skyrocket—that would be driven by a decrease in supply without a similar decrease in demand, so she agrees with this answer. Roger believes that energy sources are already at capacity, and thus more need to be found, which assumes that demand won't go down. He'd therefore also agree with this answer, making it a point of agreement between them.

Key Takeaway:
Some Point at Issue/Point of Agreement questions rely on necessary assumptions for their correct answers. Note that these assumptions must be necessary—something the speaker must believe for their argument to work. If it's something that the speaker might believe but isn't required for their argument, then we can't commit them to it and it can't be correct.

Incorrect. Pauline doesn't discuss the current capacity or what will happen if the dams keep operating, so this answer is out of scope of her argument.

Incorrect. Roger doesn't discuss environmentalists, and even Pauline doesn't discuss whether they have considered the impact on electrical costs, so this answer is out of scope of both speakers' statements.

Incorrect. This answer requires a few jumps to determine how either speaker feels about it, which means that we can't commit either to agreeing or disagreeing with it.