Logical reasoning PrepTest 147 · Section 4 · Question 13

Incorrect. There was no injury here, so this scenario can't illustrate a principle for a scenario where one occurred.

Incorrect. As soon as we saw that Linda and Seung acted carefully, we could feel confident moving to the next answer choice—a relevant detail in the stimulus was that the two were playing "carelessly."

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Illustration (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Emma and John carelessly played catch. John threw the ball and broke a neighbor's window. He—and only he—should have to compensate the neighbor.

Answer Anticipation:
Principle (Illustration) questions are some of the most involved on the test because we have to read the scenario, identify the assumption, turn it into a principle, and then apply that principle to the answers.

Here, the stimulus concludes that John, but not Emma, should have to compensate the owner of a window that was broken as both carelessly played catch. Why just him? Because he was the one to actually throw the ball when it broke the window.

So the principle:

Even when multiple people are involved in a careless activity, the person who directly causes harm—and only that person—should compensate the person who is harmed.

Answer Explanation:
In this scenario, two people were involved in a careless activity (it doesn't call street racing careless, but it inherently is). And after damage was caused, the argument concludes that only Chris—the person directly responsible for the damage—should compensate the owner. This scenario illustrates the same principle as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Illustration (Principle) questions are likely to take up some time—they're very involved. However, if you take it one step at a time—understand the stimulus, generate a principle, analyze the answers—you'll get through them efficiently.

Incorrect. The boat owner wasn't the one who directly caused the harm here (and she wasn't engaged in an activity with the careless former renter), so this answer doesn't illustrate the same principle.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that someone isn't liable for certain injuries, so this argument illustrates a separate principle.