Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 2 · Question 23

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Personal changes won't be enough to lower carbon use, so focusing on convincing people to change won't hit the goal and the government will need to step in.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus presents a goal (reducing overall carbon use), and one method of achieving it that the Environmentalist believes won't work (convincing people to change their behavior). The evidence that this won't work? Personal changes won't be on a large enough scale, so the government needs to step in.

While the argument may have established that personal changes won't make a large enough dent in carbon emissions to solve the problem, the method that is believed to not work isn't to reduce people's personal use, but to in some way convince them to do so. It's possible that that PR campaign might, in some way, galvanize wider action than just personal changes.

In short, the stimulus treats a campaign to convince people to lessen personal use as if that won't have an impact on what the government does, but that's not established—that campaign might get people to vote into office people promising action on carbon use, and thus it might be successful at achieving the goal of reducing carbon use.

Answer Explanation:
This answer rules out a potential connection between a campaign to convince people about their personal use and an outcome of the government getting involved. By separating those two, the argument is strengthened because it means that the focus on personal use won't reach the scale that only the government can. If we negate this answer and the campaign to convince people to lessen their personal use of carbon does result in them pressuring the government to take wider action, the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Here, the stimulus treats a focus on personal use as not having the unforeseen consequence of forcing government policy to change. Don't ever forget that making changes or implementing solutions frequently has unforeseen consequences, and when that's neglected by the stimulus, it's likely where the flaw is!

Incorrect. This answer brings in additional information that isn't hinted at in the stimulus, and it talks about how best to reduce personal use, whereas the stimulus is just about effectively reducing personal use (and even that is said to not be enough).

Incorrect. This answer blurs the line between being a government official and taking action, and the government issuing a policy. That line, however, doesn't need to be strictly established for the argument to work—if a few government officials are working to convince people to use less fossil fuel not as part of a government initiative, that government initiative could still be necessary to make a large enough change.

Incorrect. The argument isn't one of ease but of necessity and scale. Even if it's harder to convince the government to change its policies, that might be necessary in order to make a big enough impact.

Incorrect. If anything, this connects personal feelings to government action, thus undermining the argument. This answer is on the opposite side of the spectrum as (A).