Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 4 · Question 2

Incorrect. Both speakers seem to think that Swenson's book is bad science, but at least Yvonne doesn't address this issue directly.

Incorrect. Neither speaker seems to think Swenson's book is very good, so this is a point of agreement if anything.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
A: Swenson's book is bad, but it spurred research, so it's valuable.

Y: Bah, by that logic, viruses are good because they spur research into a cure.

Answer Anticipation:
Both Yvonne and Albert seem to agree that Swenson's book is just bad. However, they disagree on their conclusions—whether spurring new research means that it has value. Albert believes it does, whereas Yvonne analogizes it to a virus and responds to Albert's conclusion with, "You're kidding me!" Clearly, they disagree here.

Answer Explanation:
This is Albert's conclusion, and Yvonne disagrees with it by analogizing it to a virus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an analogy is present in an argument, make sure that you understand how the pieces relate to the original scenario it's an analogy for. It makes it a lot easier to work through the answers.

Incorrect. Albert states this as true, and Yvonne incorporates it into her analogy, so at the very least she doesn't commit to it being false.

Incorrect. Since both speak only of something that does stimulate new research, we don't know how they feel about things that don't.