Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 4 · Question 16

Incorrect. This is one of the reasons that the pet ban should be lifted, so it's a premise in support of that recommendation.

Incorrect. While this answer might align with and justify the conclusion, it reflects reasoning not in the stimulus, and it's much broader than the argument. Since this isn't a part of the argument, it can't be the main point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Background – Many nursing homes ban pets
Pet benefit 1 – Health benefits by lowering stress
Pet benefit 2 – Make time more rewarding
Recommendation – End the nursing home pet bans

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts by bringing up the policy of "[m]any nursing homes." While that's not really a viewpoint, it's introduced very much the same way that opposing points are, and it turns out that it's serving a similar role in that the author of this argument ends up arguing against this policy. Since that second clause is a recommendation ("should") that opposes a current practice, it's likely the conclusion. That's backed up by the following two statements explaining why the bans should be lifted, so the correct answer should highlight the recommendation against the pet ban.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the second clause, a recommendation that's backed up with two reasons that this change would be beneficial. It's the main point of the argument, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Sometimes, an opposing "point" is really a current practice that the author takes issue with. Also, recommendations tend to be conclusions, and "should" statements do, as well.

Incorrect. This answer reflects one of the reasons given to lift the pet ban, thus serving as a premise for the conclusion.

Incorrect. While the author does raise these benefits, she doesn't argue that they need to be recognized—rather, that they justify a change in policy.