Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 1 · Question 1

Incorrect. The Pundit's conclusion is that the city should have retained control of the parking rights, so it doesn't require there to be other people willing to buy them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð The city contracted out its parking fee enforcement to a private company, and they're making a lot of money.
Hypothetical Ð If the city hadn't contracted it out, that'd be their money
Conclusion Ð The city shouldn't have contracted the parking fee enforcement out

Answer Anticipation:
One way of viewing conditional statements that talk about an alternative universe ("If we had/hadn't done X . . . ") is as a hypothetical situation. And as in all hypothetical situations, the outcome that the author of that situation envisions isn't guaranteed to come to pass. The reason for that is when you make one change, there might be other, unintended changes (i.e., the "Butterfly Effect").

Here, the Pundit imagines a world where the city didn't contract its parking fee enforcement out to this private company. If nothing else changed, then sure, the city would be making this extra money. However, if the city retained control of those rights, there's no indication that they would have been able to increase the profitability the way the company did. That company was able to raise parking fees, resulting in the profits—maybe the city wouldn't have been able to do that.

Any answer that brings up an impediment to the city making the same money as the company needs to be considered, and, since this is a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question, the correct answer will rule it out.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the change made by the private company leading to their profits could have been accomplished by the city, as well. If the city couldn't have raised parking fees, then the same profits seen by the private company might not be realized by the city, and thus the Pundit's argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional statements that bring up something that could have or would have happened can be viewed as hypothetical scenarios—and they never consider everything that would change with the one the hypothetical is conditioned on. When an argument rests on a hypothetical, start looking for answers about other changes that might come along with the conditional change.

Incorrect. Since the stimulus is about only parking fees, this answer is too broad in talking about all municipal functions.

Incorrect. The factors that go into the decision on setting parking fees is out of scope—being able to set the fees at a level that guarantees profitability is the only thing that matters.

Incorrect. If anything, the Pundit is assuming that the city can do as good of a job as the private companies, thus using their profits as evidence that the city could similarly raise a lot of money.