Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 1 · Question 6

Incorrect. This argument does raise a comparison between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, but it's not relevant to the argument at hand. The flavor comparison that matters is between the low- and full-fat versions of the ice cream, and those comparisons have already been established.

Incorrect. Without knowing if the recent tests informed the subjects, it's impossible to know if this answer establishes something that makes the tests similar or different, and thus we can't determine if the argument is strengthened or weakened by this answer.

Incorrect. The connection that the argument draws is between flavor complexity and preferences between low- and full-fat versions of the flavor, not between flavors of different complexity levels.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Chocolate ice cream: People like low-fat as much as full-fat versions; the flavor has over 500 chemicals.
Vanilla ice cream: People like full-fat versions better
Conclusion: Chocolate ice cream's complexity masks the taste difference between low- and full-fat chocolate

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has two common types of logic behind it—causality, and comparisons. The argument uses a correlation (chocolate is both a complex flavor and people don't prefer full-fat over low-fat versions) to conclude a causal relationship (the complexity probably causes the tastes to be comparable). In reaching that conclusion, the argument compares people's chocolate preferences to vanilla preferences. However, it never discusses the complexity of vanilla!

If vanilla is also a complex flavor, then there's an example of the supposed cause (complexity) not leading to the supposed effect (no preference between low- and full-fat versions), which would weaken the argument. If, however, vanilla isn't complex, then the flavor is an example of the supposed cause (complexity) missing, and the supposed effect also missing (since there is a preference for full-fat versions), which would strengthen the argument. So to strengthen this argument, we want an answer that completes the comparison between chocolate and vanilla and states that vanilla isn't a complex flavor.

Answer Explanation:
This answer "completes" the comparison between vanilla and chocolate in a way that contrasts the two. Since the argument relies on the two flavors being different, this answer strengthens the argument. It essentially serves as an example of "no cause, no effect," supporting a causal relationship between complexity and taste preferences for versions of different fat content.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments frequently bring up a point of comparison, but then fail to compare the two elements across all the metrics raised. When that happens—especially in Strengthen and Weaken questions—the correct answer is likely to fill in the missing piece of the comparison.

Incorrect. Without tying people's awareness of chemical complexity to their preferences, this answer is out of scope. Even then, without knowing the chemical complexity of vanilla, this answer wouldn't impact the argument in a determinable fashion.