Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. The Leader ties beneficial outcomes to "showing" a desire to compromise, so actually having that desire is out of scope. This answer is trying to get you to think that having a desire to compromise means that a side will benefit from a compromise, but that's not true—maybe their desire to compromise will result in them getting a bad deal.

Incorrect. First, "rarely" isn't "never," so this answer doesn't guarantee that the argument will be in either scenario. And second, with that noted, it still doesn't guarantee that reaching a compromise will benefit the Leader's side. So if the opposition decides this is the rare instance where they'll respond positively to a call for compromise, there's no guarantee of a benefit.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Other side responds positively → Compromise reached
not Other side responds positively → They'll be blamed and we'll benefit
Therefore Ð Our side benefits from showing a desire to compromise

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus features a rare but interesting feature of some arguments—conditionals with inverse sufficient conditions. One conditional states what will happen if the other side responds positively to a desire to compromise, and one what will happen if the other side doesn't.

Whenever an argument is structured like this, we need to take a close look at the conditionals to see if they actually cover all eventualities. Here, they do. The second sufficient condition is "[i]f they do not [respond positively]," and that covers everything. Note that if the second sufficient condition were, "If they respond negatively . . . " then it wouldn't cover all possibilities, as the country could respond neutrally.

If not all situations were covered, the correct answer would bring up what happens in the other eventualities, connecting it to the conclusion. Since it does cover all situations, then one of them must not actually guarantee the outcome in the conclusion—that the Leader's side will benefit.

When the other side doesn't respond positively, the argument states explicitly that the Leader's side "will benefit." When they do respond positively, however, it's only noted that a compromise will be reached. Therefore, to guarantee the conclusion, the correct answer will need to state that reaching a compromise will benefit the Leader's side.

Answer Explanation:
This answer guarantees that if the opposition responds positively to the Leader's side's desire to compromise, then that side will benefit. Since the argument already established that the only other possible situation—the opposition doesn't respond positively—also leads to a benefit, no matter what, the Leader's side benefits, and the conclusion is valid.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument sets up conditionals that are clearly meant to cover all eventualities, make sure that they do. In general, if the second one is the negation of the first (as it was here), then it will cover all situations. If the second one is the opposite of the first, then there's probably a middle ground that's being ignored.

Incorrect. Any benefit seen by the opposition is out of scope of this argument about whether the Leader's side will benefit.

Incorrect. If they compromise, then there's still no guarantee that will benefit the Leader's side, and so the conclusion is still not guaranteed.