Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 3 · Question 11

Incorrect. The Professor starts her argument by "[g]ranting" that the description of Sauk's writing by the critics is accurate, thus agreeing with the claims made in support of the conclusion. What she disagrees with is whether they actually support that conclusion.

Incorrect. The Professor says the critics' argument should be rejected, not their conclusion. She argues that their premises don't support their conclusion, but she could agree with that conclusion for other reasons.

Incorrect. While the Professor does note that "some" of the critics would reject Sauk's political ideals, that's not all of them. Additionally, the Professor doesn't rely on their disagreement in reaching her conclusion—instead, she points out that the premises don't necessarily support the conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer is a weaker version of (A), and it can appear to match the Professor's argument. However, similar to (A), the Professor "[g]rant[s]" the premises of the critics—it's their connection to the conclusion that is called into question.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Critics Ð Sauk uses his mentor's techniques to advance a different political agenda, so they lack aesthetic merit
Professor Ð Your premises are true, but you haven't shown this means his work isn't as good as his mentor, so your argument should be rejected.

Answer Anticipation:
Wow, that's a lot of words. However, the question stem is asking us how the Professor's argument works—how her argument rebuts that made by the critics and shows that it should be rejected. As such, we can start our analysis at the pivot.

And this argument has a very interesting pivot word, and one that isn't used that often—"Granting . . . " That word tells us a few things. First, the author is pivoting to her argument. Second, she's starting by highlighting an area of agreement between herself and the opposing point—and here, she's stating that they mostly agree on the premises that Sauk was imitative of his mentor and working towards a different political agenda. Third, she's going to disagree with something in the opposing point—and here, since she agrees with the premises but concludes that the argument should be rejected, she must take issue with the logic.

With that established, we now need to figure out what about that logic she disagrees with. We can look to the phrase that shows the pivot from agreement to disagreement—"it has yet to be shown that". What has yet to be shown? That these premises that the Professor agrees with are relevant to the conclusion about Sauk's aesthetic merit. Maybe Sauk's writing can have merit despite imitating his mentor's style while working towards different political goals.

With the argument broken down and an understanding of how it works, we can now look for an answer that says the Professor agrees with the critics' premises but questions whether they establish their conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the Professor calls into question the logic of the argument—whether the premises support the conclusion. She grants those premises as true, but then pivots to state that they haven't been shown to support the conclusion about aesthetic merit.

Key Takeaway:
There are a few interesting pivot keywords that show the author pivoting away from an argument while still agreeing with parts of it (another is "Although," or "While (it may be true)"). These words are important to note because they highlight both a point of agreement and disagreement between the opposing point and the author, and noting where they agree and disagree will almost certainly be key to finding the correct answer.