Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 4 · Question 1

Incorrect. Randomly assigning people to groups is the hallmark of a good study, so this answer would strengthen the results of that study.

Incorrect. A study being replicable with a larger sample—especially when the initial sample was so small—only strengthens the results of that study.

Incorrect. The normal means of consuming these products is out of scope to the effect of one on the other when they're in a different form, especially since there's no study done showing that chocolate in solid form didn't have an impact on the ability to distinguish flavors in coffee.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
In a study, 5 people who tasted mocha (chocolate coffee) couldn't tell the difference between the different samples; 5 who tasted just coffee could. Therefore, chocolate messes with your ability to taste coffee.

Answer Anticipation:
This Weaken question features a study and a causal conclusion. The former should lead us to consider a sampling flaw; the latter a correlation/causation flaw.

The sample here is problematic. First, there's no indication that it's representative, especially since it's too small. Second, there's no indication that the 10 people were randomly assigned between the two groups. Any answer that highlights either of these issues will weaken the argument.

The causal conclusion here ("interferes with") is based on a correlation (as almost all study results are), so anything that weakens a correlation/causation flaw will also serve as a correct answer (ID an alternative cause; show counterexamples; suggest reversed causality, though that's unlikely here given the conclusion).

Answer Explanation:
If the group who couldn't detect differences in the coffee couldn't do so with or without the chocolate, then that suggests there's an alternative cause leading to that group having difficulty in distinguishing tastes, thus weakening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Common features of arguments suggest specific flaws (e.g., surveys; causal conclusions). If you can quickly ID those elements and walk through an analysis of whether the given flaw is present, you'll be fast. If you know the common answers for those flaws in each question type, you'll be faster!

Incorrect. In either case, they were able to notice differences when the mocha group couldn't.