Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 3 · Question 22

Incorrect. What a great trap answer! However, this answer only establishes that Kessler has non-children's books borrowed from the library, not that these books are the overdue books. If his overdue books are all children's books, but he has a few non-children's books that aren't overdue, then the principle doesn't guarantee he should be fined.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
P: More than 1 overdue book AND Some overdue books are not children's books AND Previous overdue book fine → Fined

A: Kessler has 3 overdue books, so he must be fined

Answer Anticipation:
This question is all about making sense of that principle, and ensuring that you have the multi-part sufficient condition down. It has 3 parts, and since they're linked by conjunctions, all 3 must be hit before we know the rule applies and the person might be fined.

Kessler does have more than 1 overdue book, but there's no indication that any of these books are not children's books, or that he has been fined for having an overdue book before. The correct answer, therefore, will have to establish those two facts.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that one of Kessler's overdue books is a novel for adults (i.e., not a children's book), and that he was previously fined for returning a book late (i.e., an overdue book). This answer provides the sufficient conditions that the Application from the stimulus didn't, thus justifying the application of the principle.

Key Takeaway:
Note the razor-slim difference between (A) and (B)—it came down to an easy-to-miss detail in the principle (that one of the overdue books must be a non-children's book, not just that a borrowed book had to be a non-children's book). This highlights two things. First, it's important to defer on answer choices and come back to them, analyzing each answer choice before making a final call on the one you're going to select. Second, you need a process for when you get a question down to 2 answer choices so that you don't spin your wheels. Outside of comparing the answers to the stimulus, you should also compare them to each other. By doing so, you could see that the difference between (A) and (B) is that one specifies that an overdue book borrowed by Kessler is for adults, thus allowing you to see how that detail intersects with the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't state that he was fined for any of those previous instances of returning books late, so it doesn't establish a sufficient condition of the principle.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish that any of his currently overdue books are not children's books, so it doesn't establish a sufficient condition of the principle.

Incorrect. By establishing that Kessler has never been fined before, this answer choice guarantees the principle doesn't apply to him.