Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 3 · Question 12

Incorrect. While this answer establishes that the new process hasn't been used safely for at least a year in one other factory, it doesn't establish that it hasn't been used safely at any other factory, which is what would meet the condition in the principle.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
P: not Used safely for at least a year somewhere AND not Demonstrably increase safety → Inspector shouldn't approve new process

A: Conclusion Ð Inspector shouldn't approve new process. Premise Ð not Demonstrably increase safety.

Answer Anticipation:
First, a Policy is just a Principle formalized, so we're going to refer to it as a Principle and treat it as such.

The Principle is stated using one of the trickier conditional indicator words—"unless." There are two ways to diagram that, and we chose to treat it as "if not." Note that when you treat it as "if not," you have to negate the entire phrase it applies to—any terms and any connectors. That's why, here, the OR in the stimulus became AND—it was negated along with the two sufficient condition terms. If you diagrammed it using the other method (it introduces the necessary and you have to then negate the sufficient), that's fine—you should have ended up with the contrapositive of our diagram. Since the Application's conclusion is that the Inspector shouldn't approve the new process, you would have then taken the contrapositive to get it to line up with that conclusion and ended up in the same place.

With that noted, we can see that the conditional does apply and would allow the conclusion to be drawn if both sufficient conditions are met. However, the premise of the Application only establishes one of the two conditions that are both required to trigger the conditional, so the correct answer should establish the other one—that the process hasn't been used safely for more than a year at another factory.

Answer Explanation:
If the process hasn't been used in any other factory, then it can't have been used safely in any other factory. That's enough to satisfy the other sufficient condition of the principle and thus justify the application.

Key Takeaway:
When you're diagramming a conditional using the keyword "unless" (or one of the equivalent words—"without", "except", and "until"), be careful when it applies to an AND or OR statement. Depending on how you diagram—mainly, if you treat it as "if not"—then you have to remember to negate that word. AND becomes OR; OR becomes AND.

Incorrect. The principle is about approving new manufacturing processes, not current ones. This answer would need to provide a comparison allowing the conclusion that the new process has not been safely in use for more than a year, and it doesn't do that, instead conflating the sufficient conditions with each other and comparing it to other processes—a whole lot of out of scopeness!

Incorrect. This answer relates to what we're looking for, but it doesn't establish that the process hasn't been used safely elsewhere, so it doesn't justify the application.

Incorrect. Has it been safely used, and, if so, for how long? Without knowing that, it's impossible to know if this answer justifies the application.