Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 4 · Question 17

Incorrect. First, there's no indication what the results of this research was. Second, there's no discussion of whether publicly stating it will be harmful.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Principle: not Expressing idea generally harmful to people → Government shouldn't prevent expression of idea

Application: Calista Ð Cancer rates are up slightly over the past 20 years partly due to cell phone use.
Conclusion Ð It was wrong for the government to stop her from talking

Answer Anticipation:
The principle states that the government shouldn't prevent the expression of an idea under certain circumstances, and the application states that the government was wrong to do something. A principle that establishes someone "shouldn't" do something can justify a conclusion that they were wrong to do it—by definition, it's wrong to do something you shouldn't.

Since the conclusion of the Application matches the necessary condition of the Principle, we need to figure out how it falls short in establishing the sufficient condition. And here, while we learn what Calista wanted to publicly state, there's no discussion of the impact of her statements on the public. To establish that the government shouldn't have prevented her from making the public statement (and thus it was wrong to do so), the Application will need to establish that Calista's statements wouldn't be generally harmful to people.

Since there's nothing approaching that in the Application, we'll have to find an answer that forms that connection directly with the information presented.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that Calista's statements would benefit people, thus ensuring that they wouldn't be harmful to people generally. The Principle would therefore apply to her statements, meaning that the government shouldn't prevent her from making them, and doing so would be wrong.

Key Takeaway:
Most Strengthen (Principle) questions won't provide enough information in the Application to ensure that the Principle applies—in other words, it won't establish that the sufficient condition is present. You'll need to connect what is established in the premises of the Application to that sufficient condition in order to justify the application.

Incorrect. Calista's beliefs are out of scope of the principle, which is about the actual impact on people.

Incorrect. In order to justify the conclusion in the Application, it would need to be shown that Calista's statements wouldn't harm people, so this answer couldn't justify the Application.

Incorrect. While this answer can seem as if it guarantees Calista's statements would benefit people, it falls short of doing so. It's not clear that her statements would convince people that they were at risk of cancer. Additionally, it hasn't been established that cell phones do cause cancer, and so Calista's statements might be wrong and yet still get people to use their phones less, which is arguably harmful.