Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 3 · Question 21

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Study: Sulfur factory workers were significantly worse at identifying smells than workers at other locations.
Conclusion: Sulfur fumes damage your sense of smell.

Answer Anticipation:
This answer is based on a study that highlights a correlation, drawing a causal conclusion. That suggests two avenues for answers that will weaken the argument—our standard sampling answers, and our standard correlation/causation answers. Any answer that calls the sample or study design into question will weaken the argument. Additionally, any answer that IDs an alternative cause, highlights counterexamples, or suggests reversed causality will weaken the argument.

And remember—in this Bizarro Weaken question, weakeners are eliminated.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion is that sulfur damages one's sense of smell, not one's ability to smell natural scents, so this answer is irrelevant to the argument. Additionally, the scents being close-but-not-exact to natural smells would presumably affect both groups similarly, so it shouldn't have thrown off the results. Since this answer doesn't affect the argument, it doesn't weaken it, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
Bizarro Weaken questions (like all Bizarro questions) require some flexibility because you can't possibly anticipate all the answers that you'll eliminate. That's why—as we did here—it's more important to develop a framework through which you'll analyze the answers than a specific list of answers. And having these frameworks for non-Bizarro questions can make those much easier, as well!

Incorrect. This answer suggests an alternative cause for the inability to identify smells—the strong smell of sulfur overpowered the smells from the study. Since this answer suggests another reason for the inability to identify smells, this weakens the argument.

Incorrect. This answer choice calls the study into question by raising the possibility that the earlier study helped those participants in this new study. For example, if the same scents were used, then the participants might have recognized those smells and their proper identification.

Incorrect. This answer choice suggests an alternative cause—these other fumes might affect smell, not the sulfur.

Incorrect. This answer provides an alternative explanation for the discrepancy in identifying smells—it wasn't that they had a bad sense of smell, it's that they were unfamiliar with the smells they experienced. If you've never smelled a tulip, it's possible you could have a perfect sense of smell without being able to identify that flower by smell.