Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 2 · Question 23

Incorrect. First, there's nothing in the stimulus to suggest that initial investment in an industry prevents further investment from leading to more economic growth—just that it leads to competition that affects the bottom line of the initial investor. Second, the stimulus is about substantial growth, so even if substantial growth is precluded by the stimulus by a second round of investment, some growth is still possible.

Incorrect. Competition in traditional industries isn't discussed in the stimulus, so there's no way to compare its level to competition in new industries. Additionally, the competition in modern industries is only mentioned in the context of successful businesses, not all businesses.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Businesspeople invest in new industries → Developing country substantially ↑ growth
Investing in new industries is risky
Business in new industry succeeds → Competitors form and cut into profits
Businesspeople have little incentive to invest in new industries

Answer Anticipation:
The argument sets up a sufficient condition for substantial economic growth, but then it raises some bars to meeting that condition—namely, that it's risky and there's little incentive to take that risk. While the conditionals and information don't cleanly chain together, they do suggest that a country could increase their chances of reaching the sufficient condition for growth by removing some of the barriers for businesspeople to invest in these new industries. However, since they don't cleanly line up, we want a weak answer in that area—something about removing these barriers can lead to economic growth, not that it will.

Answer Explanation:
The stimulus notes that investment in new industries can lead to substantial economic growth, but that there's little incentive for businesspeople to make these investments. By removing this bar by increasing incentives, a developing country would increase the likelihood that a businessperson would be willing to take that risk, thus (based on the first conditional) increasing the likelihood that a sufficient condition for growth would be met. Note that this answer doesn't state providing these incentives will lead to economic growth, just that it "can" increase the "prospects" for economic growth—a much weaker statement that's easier to support.

Key Takeaway:
Always be on the lookout for logical force indicators in Must Be True questions—especially the answer choices. The weaker the stimulus, the weaker the correct answer must be. Here, while there were some conditionals, they included language like "can," and they didn't line up perfectly with some of the non-conditional statements, leading to us looking for a weaker answer choice about possibility instead of certainty.

Incorrect. Businesspeople investing is noted in the first conditional as a sufficient—not necessary—condition for economic growth, so a developing country could still see economic growth without that investment.

Incorrect. While being the first to invest in an industry is noted as being very risky, there's no indication that being the second to invest has "little risk"—that's a negation of the statement.