Logical reasoning PrepTest 147 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. Edgar believes this. Rafaela doesn't discuss inconvenience at all, so this answer is out of scope of her argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Valid

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
E: Water pumps are shut down and inconveniencing people to protect a stupid fish. That's absurd.

R: Danger to the fish suggests danger to the water supply, so you're missing the point.

Answer Anticipation:
Identifying overlap in the statements of the two speakers is a great first step in tackling a Point at Issue question. Here, Edgar's argument has more to it than Rafaela's, so it can be useful to start with her point and see where it overlaps.

She clearly believes that Edgar is overlooking something important ("You're missing the point."). What is he missing? That the fish aren't the full story of the water pump shutdown. He believes that it's just about the fish ("in order to protect . . . ", "for the sake of . . . "), but Rafaela highlights that it's about a bigger threat to the water supply.

There's nothing else to Rafaela's argument, so that must be the point at issue between them.

Answer Explanation:
Edgar believes this is true—the pumps were shut down "in order to" protect the fish, and it's absurd to do so "for the sake" of this inconsequential thing. Rafaela thinks that Edgar is "missing the point"—there's a bigger threat to the water supply that is being addressed. This is the point at issue between the two.

Key Takeaway:
In Point at Issue questions, the initial statement in the rebuttal often highlights what the second speaker takes issue with. It can be a good way to frame your understanding of what the correct answer should address.

Incorrect. Edgar might agree with this, though it's a little broader than his statement (which is about one species of small fish). However, Rafaela doesn't weigh in on whether this species of fish is inconsequential since she focuses on a bigger threat that the fish are a sign of. They could be inconsequential themselves while the bigger problem they evince is consequential.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses the legality of the shutdown, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses how effective the method of protecting the fish will be, so this answer is out of scope.