Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 4 · Question 23

Incorrect. The highest bid is from a corporation that continued to be majority-owned by the citizens of Country F (a minority share was purchased by noncitizens), so this answer doesn't violate either clause of the constitution.

Incorrect. There's no indication that this citizen-owned corporation was the highest bid, and it operating in other countries doesn't affect who owns it, so this answer doesn't violate either clause.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that World Oil Company has made one of the highest bids—it doesn't establish that it's the highest or that the government is going to go through with this sale. Since the government hasn't made a call on selling it yet, they're not yet in a situation to violate either clause. Note that not knowing if the citizens of F have majority ownership would violate the clause since that clause requires the government to ensure that the citizens are majority owners.

Incorrect. Selling to the company with the highest bid will also sell to a company that citizens of F have a majority share in, so there's no dilemma here that would require violating at least one of the constitution's clauses.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Cannot Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Government sells state-owned entity → Sell for highest price on open market
Government sells state-owned entity → Citizens of F will have majority share of company for at least 1 year after sale

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus establishes two requirements for the government sale of a state-owned entity. The question stem asks us to find an answer where the government would end up needing to violate at least one of the principles. For that to be the case, the requirement set out in one of these clauses must force the violation of the other one.

In other words, the correct answer will need to establish that there's a situation where the requirements are mutually exclusive—where the sale at the highest price would prevent the citizens from having a majority stake in the company for at least a year. Likely something about an offer that beats all the others but has a stipulation attached that the buyer is the majority owner.

Answer Explanation:
This answer sets up the two requirements as being mutually exclusive. In ensuring that the sale adheres to the second requirements (citizens maintain a majority share), the government would violate the first by reducing the price. If the government takes the highest price, then they wouldn't be able to ensure the citizens maintain a majority share in the entity. In setting up each requirement as preventing the other from being followed, this answer sets up the requirements as mutually exclusive and thus ensures one will be violated.

Key Takeaway:
Notice that several of these answers didn't guarantee that the government was in full compliance with both clauses—many only established that there was currently majority ownership for the citizens of country F, not that it would continue for at least a year. However, the question stem didn't ask for an answer that didn't fully establish compliance—it asked for an answer that highlighted a situation where the government would be forced to violate one of the clauses. That's a higher bar, and one that only a single answer choice met.