Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. The plan in the stimulus is giving the money to victims of the crime that the burglar was convicted of. Those victims may be of other burglars, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), the stimulus establishes that the collected money will go to victims of burglary, not necessarily the specific burglary the person was convicted of.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Proposal Ð Garnish burglars' wages
Opposing point Ð This is stealing and thus an abuse of power
Letter Ð Even if it is stealing, if it's used to create a victim's fund, it's justified

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions task us with finding an answer that justifies the judgment in the conclusion based on the facts presented.

Here, the Letter concludes that the actions by a government are justified. So the correct answer will have to establish the conditions under which an action can be concluded to be justified.

So what are the relevant details? Well, the government is considering garnishing the wages of burglars. The opposing point believes this is stealing—and the author of the argument says it'd be justified even if it were stealing! Therefore, the fact that it could be considered stealing isn't justification for the conclusion. Rather, the Letter Writer falls back on the purpose of the garnishment in order to reach her conclusion—that this money is used to compensate victims. The correct answer should use that to justify the conclusion:

If money is taken (even if "stolen") from criminals to compensate victims of the crime of which they were committed, then that taking is justified.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't fully justify the conclusion, but it does create a principle that the argument relies on. The Letter Writer uses the goals of the plan—to compensate victims—as a reason that the plan is justified. Thus, this answer in connecting the motives behind a plan to justification for that plan strengthens the argument. Since the question stem asks us to find an answer that "most helps" the argument and not one that fully proves the conclusion, this answer is therefore good enough.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions will usually have an answer that completely (or almost completely) justifies the conclusion. However, there are some that have correct answers that are more necessary principles, or principles that underlie the logic without fully justifying it. If you see one of these, check the question stem—it's completely fine to pick one if it asks you to find a principle that does the "most" to justify the conclusion.

Incorrect. First, the Letter Writer says that the plan is justified "even if" it's a form of stealing, so she doesn't necessarily agree that this taking is a crime. Second, this answer establishes a necessary condition for a plan to be justified, and we're looking for a sufficient condition for that.

Incorrect. First, the Letter Writer says that the plan is justified "even if" it's a form of stealing, so she doesn't necessarily agree that this taking is stealing. Second, this answer would justify an argument against the plan, not for it.