Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 2 · Question 21

Incorrect. The action that's needed to be taken in this scenario is a study, not something that needs to be studied. This answer is about a cost-benefit analysis, not a study of a potential downside. (The study itself is the downside here!)

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Illustration (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Draining a marsh is necessary to build an office complex. But no one has studied if this marsh is necessary to filter water. So the city should block construction until a study can be done.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is a recommendation on what the city should do, so the principle will provide a generalization that allows that conclusion to be drawn based on the established facts. A specific principle here would be:

If a study hasn't been done to assess whether a marsh is crucial to maintaining well water quality, then the city should prevent the draining of that marsh until a study can be done.

If we generalize/abstract from that, we'd end up with a principle similar to:

If a certain change has a potential downside that hasn't been studied, then the change should be postponed until those changes can be studied.

Answer Explanation:
The change here (releasing new products) has a potential downside (costly recalls/lawsuits) that hasn't been studied ("not yet been thoroughly tested"). From that, the argument concludes that the chance should be postponed. This answer illustrates the same principle as the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Writing out both a specific, topical and an abstract, general version of the principle can be helpful in Illustration (Principle) questions so that you have two guideposts to aim for when looking at answer choices.

Incorrect. Here, the question isn't whether testing has been done at all, but whether it's been completed. The conclusion is also about releasing a report from the study, not whether the release of the grill should be delayed.

Incorrect. This answer picks one option over another after weighing pros and cons of each option, which is a very different argument. If you had eliminated this answer as soon as it established that the new highway "would inevitably damage" wilderness, that would have been fine since a key feature of the stimulus was uncertainty over the impact of the change.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that a certain action should be taken, not delayed, based on a cost/benefit analysis.