Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 2 · Question 24

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Tariffs generally protect only a few people, and most people oppose them. So politicians who oppose tariffs are more likely to win.

Answer Anticipation:
A poll was done, so we should start by considering a sampling flaw, and a correlation/causation flaw.

For the sampling flaw, the conclusion is about winning an election, but the poll sampled "people." We don't know that this sample is representative of voters—maybe voters have different feelings on tariffs than the general population. The argument assumes that this sample is representative, so that's a potential answer.

What about a correlation/causation flaw? The conclusion isn't exactly causal, but thinking through that lens does suggest another issue with the argument—it assumes people care enough about tariffs that they'd let a politician's position on it influence their vote. It could be that they have an opinion, but it's so loosely held that it would actually cause them to vote for a politician that voted against these tariffs—or even be aware of that vote.

With two flaws in mind, let's head to the answer choices!

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't directly mirror our second anticipation, but it's in the same world. If tariff supporters are significantly more likely to base their vote on a politician's voting record on tariffs, then voting against them would lose this block and potentially not gain the voters who are less likely to base their vote on it, destroying the argument. This answer is required for the argument to work.

Key Takeaway:
Don't get so wrapped up in your anticipation that you rule out anything other than it. If something deals with the same concepts, then consider it before eliminating it and moving on!

Incorrect. This is way too extreme to be a necessary assumption of the argument in applying to all votes always.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of general tariffs in the stimulus, and there's no need to bring them into the argument for the conclusion to be validly drawn. If the conclusion were about all tariffs instead of "these" tariffs, then maybe this would be correct.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't about whether politicians should support something but rather whether supporting something would increase their odds of reelection, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Since the stimulus relies on polling data to highlight the lack of support for tariffs, such knowledge isn't required for the argument to work.