Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 2 · Question 1

Incorrect. What these individuals are paid is out of scope to an argument purely about whether those who are uncertified are also unqualified.

Incorrect. Other contracts are out of scope of the argument since it's just about whether the one contractor has unqualified technicians.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
The city chose a contractor with 40% of their employees certified by the HTA, so 60% are unqualified, which is bad.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus hops from a premise about a certification from the Heating Technicians Association to a conclusion about those not certified being unqualified. That's a big jump—maybe other groups also provide a certification, or maybe a technician can be qualified without being certified by a group. The argument assumes that only those certified by the HTA are qualified, so the correct answer will have to establish that connection.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects certification to being qualified. If technicians who lack certification are still qualified technicians, the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Early Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions tend to feature term shifts and correct answers that connect those terms.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the makeup of the technicians at the contractor hired by the city, so who actually did the work is out of scope. Additionally, if anything, this answer would cut against the Editorialist's contention that the city's actions were outrageous by suggesting that only qualified technicians did the installation work.

Incorrect. While this answer might explain how a contract with unqualified technicians could get a contract, it's in no way necessary for this to be true for the argument to work. When an answer is just one of many potential explanations in a Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, it's not going to be correct.