Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 1 · Question 4

Incorrect. There's no indication that the proposal would try to hide this information from the customers. While the approval is for using the money to pay for a dam, there's no indication that the public is aware of that, or that the public wouldn't be informed of the change.

Incorrect. There's no indication that roads don't benefit the whole community.

Incorrect. The opinion of the customers isn't mentioned anywhere in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The legislator's proposal doesn't involve charging an additional fee—that fee was charged based on an earlier proposal that was already passed.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
Proposal Ð Using money collected as a charge on water bills to fund new roads (instead of a dam)
Conclusion Ð That is unacceptable

Answer Anticipation:
Principle (Strengthen) questions task us with finding a principle that justifies the judgment in the conclusion based on the details in the premises.

Here, the conclusion is that a proposal is unacceptable. While normally we'd look for an answer that matched this language, there are a variety of different ways to phrase a principle that would make something unacceptable without using that word. The one that happens to be one of the most common words in principle answer choices is should—if something shouldn't be done, then it's unacceptable to do it. So while we'll keep our eyes open for answers that say something is unacceptable, answers that say something shouldn't be done will also work.

What, here, shouldn't be done? Using money collected from people's water bills to pay for new roads. The answer could connect this to the answer in many ways—possibly by highlighting the difference between collecting money from water bills to pay for a dam—two related things—versus roads, which are much less related. However, any answer that connects the proposal to something that is unacceptable/shouldn't be done will be correct here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that money collected on a water bill shouldn't be used on things other than water-related expenditures. That would justify a conclusion that it's unacceptable to spend that money on roads.

Key Takeaway:
While Principle questions generally have a match-up between the judgment in the conclusion and the judgment in the correct answer, there is some wiggle room there, specifically with a principle about what "should" happen. That can frequently be used to justify conclusions about it being unacceptable/unfair that the thing isn't done.