Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 1 · Question 8

Incorrect. Warrington disagrees with Lopez's conclusion, so she wouldn't bring up additional reasons to believe it.

Incorrect. Lopez does appeal to tradition ("has been so since . . . "), but Warrington ignores that part of his argument in her rebuttal.

Incorrect. Warrington doesn't explicitly challenge Lopez's conclusion—she notes that there's a consideration he doesn't address that undermines his argument. Warrington could believe that the university isn't committed to liberal arts for other reasons, even if Lopez's argument isn't fully convincing.

Incorrect. This answer would describe someone defending Lopez's argument from criticism. Since Warrington is herself criticizing the argument, this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
L: Studying classics is required for the liberal arts, and we closed our classics department, so we're not committed to liberal arts.

W: It is necessary, but you can do that without a classics department.

Answer Anticipation:
For these two-speaker Methods of Reasoning questions, it's important to identify if the two speakers agree or disagree, and if they disagree, what the second speaker takes issue with (premise? conclusion? reasoning?).

Here, Warrington starts her response with, "Although"—that's a structure word indicating that there will be a concession made before pivoting into the main point. Here, the concession is Lopez's premise—so the two are in agreement that studyings the classics is necessary to the liberal arts. Since Warrington is about to pivot, however, we should anticipate she's going to disagree with Lopez's conclusion, and it'll be important to note how she does so considering she agrees with his premise, and whether she reaches the opposite conclusion or just calls his conclusion into question.

For the first question—how she rebuts Lopez's argument—this will generally happen in one of two ways—undermining the logic of the opposing point, or bringing up a new consideration. (The third way—disagreeing with a premise—is off the table, as we already noted that she agrees with the premise of Lopez's argument.) Here, Warrington brings up another consideration—you can study the classics without a classics department. So Warrington's argument proceeds by bringing up this other consideration in order to undermine Lopez's conclusion.

As to the second question—Warrington never explicitly states that the university is committed to the liberal arts, so her argument doesn't conclude Lopez is wrong. She only implies that his premises don't fully support his conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects Warrington's rebuttal. She brings up a consideration—that the classics can be studied outside of a classic department—to suggest that Lopez hasn't established premises that fully support the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When you face a two-speaker Methods of Reasoning question, note whether:

(1) the second speaker reaches the same or a different conclusion as the first speaker, or whether she doesn't reach a conclusion and just points out a flaw in the argument

(2) the second speaker agrees or disagrees with the premises of the first speaker

With those two things noted, you should be well on your way to understanding her method of reasoning.