Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 4 · Question 22

Incorrect. The Librarian implies that he agrees the document will deteriorate without restoration—he just doesn't think this should be a concern for the research library.

Incorrect. While it is a part of the argument that the Librarian's conclusion rejects, it's a premise ("since"), not a conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point—The town charter will be destroyed if it's not repaired, so the library should pay to repair it.
Librarian—The document isn't important to scholars, and we're a research library, so we should spend that money to preserve other documents.

Answer Anticipation:
The Librarian starts his argument with what "[s]ome" would argue, and an attribution like that is almost always an opposing point. This is backed up by the pivot halfway through the argument ("But") and the ultimate conclusion that what some argue—the library should spend money to preserve a particular document—is wrong, and the money should be spent elsewhere.

The statement in question is before the pivot, so it's a part of the opposing point. It's introduced by "since," which tells us it's a premise in support of a conclusion included in the same sentence—that first clause. So the statement in question is a premise of the opposing point.

Answer Explanation:
The opposing point concludes that the library should spend some of its grant money preserving a specific document, and the Librarian argues against that. The statement in question supports this opposing point, so this answer correctly characterizes it.

Key Takeaway:
For Argument Structure questions, a high-level approach should, at least, determine whether the statement in question is part of an opposing point or the author's argument, and whether it's a premise/conclusion/intermediate conclusion/background. As we saw here, that was enough to answer the question!

Incorrect. It's a statement before the pivot that directly supports the opposing point's conclusion, so it's not a premise supporting the Librarian's argument.

Incorrect. It's not required that the document be deteriorating for the Librarian's argument to work. If that document isn't deteriorating, in fact, then the Librarian's conclusion still holds—the money shouldn't be spent to restore it!