Logical reasoning PrepTest 147 · Section 1 · Question 11

Incorrect. Nick agrees with this—he believes that the current business decision should factor in loyalty to the Pincus family. Pedro doesn't believe that a donation should create loyalty that alters business decisions, but he doesn't discuss a broad enough swath of topics to guarantee that loyalty should never be a consideration in business decisions, which is what would be required for this to be the point at issue.

Incorrect. Neither Nick nor Pedro speaks to the motives of the Pincus family in donating.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
N: The Pincus family has donated a lot to the university, and so giving a contract to their competitor would be disloyal and shouldn't be done.

P: Donations don't create an obligation—that's not how charity works. We should give the contract to the company with the most competitive bid.

Answer Anticipation:
Looking at the two arguments here, we should identify areas of overlap so that we can determine which of those areas are a point of disagreement.

However, when the second speaker rebuts the first speaker's argument, we should always start with what the second speaker takes issue with. While another detail could be the point at issue, especially on a question in the first half of the section, the main point of contention tends to be correct.

Here, Pedro starts by talking about what Nick discusses—the donation and any obligation it creates. Nick believes it does create some type of obligation since he believes that there is disloyalty in giving a contract to the competitor of a donor. Pedro, however, doesn't believe there's any such obligation. Let's start there, and check back on any other answer that sounds as if it's a point at issue.

Answer Explanation:
Nick believes that it does, and that there's loyalty attached that should guide future decisions. Pedro believes that a donation "does not oblige" anything in return. This is the point at issue between them.

Key Takeaway:
When the second speaker in a Point at Issue question rebuts the argument made in the first, identify what that second speaker takes issue with. It's likely at least related to the correct answer, if not the correct answer itself.

Incorrect. Gratefulness is out of scope of Pedro's argument.

Incorrect. Neither speaker notes whether the Pincus company put in the most competitive bid. In fact, it's not even clear from the statements that they did put in a bid—Nick might believe that it's disloyal to support their main competitor even if they're interested in the contract and the Pincus family isn't!