Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 2 · Question 6

Incorrect. This answer brings in many ideas that aren't mentioned in the stimulus, and thus it's unlikely to be necessary to the argument. Brooks doesn't have to have "inappropriately" joined the government—it could be a legitimate power-sharing agreement. Additionally, there's no specific reason that's required for the argument to work, so giving the government a "semblance of legitimacy" is, indeed, out of scope.

Incorrect. The actual corruption in the government doesn't matter—just the perception of the populace as far as Brooks is concerned.

Incorrect. The criteria by which the two groups are judging Brooks don't have to deal with her positions—they have to deal with her alleged corruption, and her joining McFarlane's government—so how much her positions overlap with McFarlane's is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð McFarlane is a dictator. He had Brooks arrested on corruption charges. Now, he's pardoning her and she's joining his government.
McFarlane's supporters Ð Believe that Brooks is corrupt
McFarlane's opponents Ð Believe that anyone in McFarlane's government should be opposed
Conclusion Ð Brooks will not have a lot of supporters

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument is about Brooks—she won't have much support in this country. Why?

Because two groups will oppose her. McFarlane's supporters think she's corrupt, and McFarlane's opponents will oppose anyone in McFarlane's government. And that covers just about everyone, right?

Not necessarily. While it can sound as if everyone is either a supporter or opponent of McFarlane, that's not necessarily the case—maybe a vast swath of the population doesn't really care about who's in charge of the government (dictator or not) and is simply living their lives, letting political drama play out in the capital. The argument is assuming that this isn't the case—that the majority of the country either supports or opposes McFarlane and, thus, the majority doesn't support Brooks, leading to the conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the two groups noted to oppose Brooks make up a majority of the country, thus allowing the conclusion that she will have little support to be drawn. If the majority of the country neither opposes nor supports McFarlane, we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't support Brooks and thus the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
We see yet another question where tracking the groups discussed and thinking about how they overlap with each other, and if there are any "out" groups, is relevant. Always track the groups that are being discussed to see if there are shifts, overlap, or groups not considered by the argument.

Incorrect. The argument relies on McFarlane's supporters believing Brooks is guilty of corruption—her actual guilt is out of scope of that.