Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 1 · Question 7

Incorrect. Peraski directly states this. Jackson doesn't talk about this directly, but his statements imply that he drives a smaller car (since he could do better) and that gas guzzlers pollute more (since he refers to a "greater source" of pollution). So this is either out of scope of his argument, or a point of agreement.

Incorrect. Peraski calls this hypocritical, and Jackson acknowledges it as hypocritical, as well, so this is a point of agreement.

Incorrect. Peraski states this, and Jackson acknowledges he could do better in this area—i.e., pollute less—so this is another point of agreement.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
P: Gas guzzlers are worse than small cars, but bikes are better, so those who drive instead of bike are hypocrites if we call out the pollution of gas guzzlers.

J: Sure, but it's worse to not speak out against pollution just because it might be hypocritical.

Answer Anticipation:
Point at Issue questions are best tackled by identifying overlap between the two statements—both speakers need to have an opinion on something for them to disagree on it. Interestingly, here, there's a lot of overlap between the two statements, and they actually agree on quite a bit. Both seem concerned with the environment, and so the overlap is largely around points of agreement.

However, they do disagree over whether one should speak out against worse sources of pollution if one isn't minimizing their own carbon footprint. Peraski believes that someone who hasn't reduced their own pollution as much as possible—e.g., by riding a bike instead of driving a small car—can't criticize those who pollute worse because that would be hypocritical. Jackson, however, believes it's worse to not call out worse pollution because of fear of being labeled hypocritical. That's the only point at issue between them, so it should be reflected in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
Peraski states that, in a certain situation, one "cannot speak out" because it reveals hypocrisy, so she disagrees with this answer. Jackson, on the other hand, thinks it's worse to not speak out against greater sources of pollution than to be hypocritical, committing him to agreeing with this answer. This is, therefore, the point at issue between them.

Key Takeaway:
Most Point at Issue questions don't feature two arguments with so many points of agreement as this one. When that happens, be ready to eliminate answers that feature overlap on issues where there is agreement.

Incorrect. Neither speaker says that there is "no" moral difference between the two. A hypocritical stance can be taken despite there being differences between the two beliefs/actions that make one hypocritical.