Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 2 · Question 6

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish if these initiatives also saw lobbying against them from large corporations, and it doesn't establish if the government promised them funding that it didn't follow through on, so it's impossible to say how these examples impact the argument.

Incorrect. Being subject to change doesn't provide an alternative explanation as to why the funding levels actually changed, so this answer doesn't impact the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Not a single alternative energy project has received even close to the funding the government promised. Large corporations have lobbied against them. Therefore, the lobbying efforts are working.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen questions frequently (if not usually) include a correlation/causation flaw, so you should always be on the lookout for causal language in the conclusion. Actively looking for it would have made seeing that this conclusion features causal language ("influenced") much easier!

Looking back at the premises, we can see that this causal conclusion is based on a correlation. Alternative energy projects didn't receive promised funding, and large corporations lobbied against them. Those two things are correlated, but there's no indication in the premises that the lobbying is what caused the government to underdeliver on their funding promises to these projects.

As with any Strengthen question that features a correlation/causation jump, we should look for an answer that:

(1) Eliminates an alternative cause
(2) Shows more examples of the cause and effect going together
(3) Raises a control—no cause, no effect
(4) Describes how the causality worked

With that in mind, let's head to the answer choices!

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the correlation between large corporation lobbying and funding cuts is very strong—which implies both examples of the cause and effect going together, and in saying that these are "the only" projects with cut funding, showing examples of no cause, no effect. In tying the supposed cause and effect together completely, the stimulus strengthens that relationship.

Key Takeaway:
You should head into any Strengthen stimulus with an eye towards correlation/causation flaws, as it's the most common flaw in this question type. And if you see it, you're in good shape, as the answer choices tend to fall into the same patterns.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer weakens the argument by showing examples where the supposed cause (lobbying by large corporations) didn't lead to the effect (changes in funding levels based on that lobbying).

Incorrect. This doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of these efforts, so it doesn't strengthen the causal conclusion.