Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 3 · Question 10

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to pick it by getting you to think that it calls into question whether there's a need to make a change. However, intermittent or not, the current code is causing problems that should be addressed.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to think that the alternate proposed in the conclusion is not perfect, thus weakening the recommendation. However, this answer doesn't establish if these attempts are successful or lead to a public loss of confidence, so it doesn't actually call the viability of the alternative into question.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
The traditional parliamentary code causes us to bicker over procedure, hurting the public's confidence. Public confidence is necessary for us to work, so we must adopt an alternate code that has worked in other areas.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument concludes that a certain alternate code must be adopted based on a problem identified with the current code. While the premises do establish that making a change is probably a good idea, it doesn't establish that the alternate code mentioned is the only viable option. There could be other codes out there that would be better for the country, or changes could be made to the current code to address the identified problem. Any answer that brings up an alternative solution to the problem will weaken the recommendation to adopt this specific alternate code.

Answer Explanation:
The Chair establishes that there's a problem with the current code, but jumps from that to recommending one specific alternative. Any viable alternatives to the one in the conclusion would weaken that recommendation, and this answer highlights one—a revision to the current code that addresses the identified problems.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument mandates a specific course of action, it must establish that that course of action is better than all alternatives. Short of establishing that it's the only viable option, or that all other options are worse, the argument is flawed and any alternative can weaken that conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer is too weak to affect the argument. Even if there are some examples where it's unreasonable to change a code to maintain public confidence, it could be reasonable in this case—especially since the Chair notes that the public confidence is necessary for success in the Council's endeavors.

Incorrect. If anything, this speaks in favor of the ability of the alternate code to solve the problems created by the traditional code.