Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 1 · Question 1

Incorrect. There's no information in the stimulus as to whether voters prioritize experience in casting their ballot, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no information as to whether financial backing has a positive or negative impact on a candidate's chances. Even assuming it helps them by allowing them to do more, this would strengthen the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Prodevelopment candidates have won the past 6 elections, so Chu, the predevelopment candidate, will probably defeat Lewis, who isn't predevelopment.

Answer Anticipation:
Past performance isn't a great indicator of future performance. Just because they won the past several elections doesn't mean predevelopment candidates will win in the future. Any answer that points out the trend might be over, or gives a reason to believe the trend will end, will weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
First, this answer mentions the problems are new, thus suggesting the past elections aren't representative of this one. Second, this answer gives a reason to believe that being pro-development might not be a positive in this election, thus weakening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument is predicting something based on past performance, always consider that some important element may have changed in the interim.

Incorrect. Lewis's history doesn't impact her current policy stances, which are anti-development.

Incorrect. Chu is viewed that way now, though.