Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 3 · Question 19

Incorrect. The argument discusses businesses that are providing a valuable product to people and should be allowed to use a limited resource, so this answer is a negation of the logic in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The Owner wants to reject the bill, so this answer about addressing the problem doesn't justify the conclusion.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of how well this problem has been studied (though the Owner does seem to have a lot of information about it, suggesting that there is a certain level of knowledge on the issue).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Food trucks take up limited parking spaces and cause traffic, but this doesn't affect most of the city, so a bill banning food trucks from parking spaces shouldn't pass.

Answer Anticipation:
As with many Principle (Strengthen) questions, this conclusion is about what should or shouldn't be done. When that's the case, the correct answer will almost always take the form:

If (details of the situation), then X should/n't be done.

Starting with that conclusion, we should take a look at the details of the situation to see which ones the Owner relies on to prove her point. Here, she rejects the bill because there are plenty of parking spaces available and very little traffic in other areas of the city. The correct answer, then, will likely attach those details to the recommendation against the bill in the conclusion:

If a bill is putting restrictions on business to address a problem that doesn't affect the majority of a city, it shouldn't be passed.

Answer Explanation:
This answer can justify a conclusion that a bill should be rejected, and the bill in question does disadvantage a certain type of business (food trucks), so it could apply in this case. The principle here is predicated on the problem not affecting most areas of the city, and the stimulus notes that there is "plenty" of parking and "little" traffic in most of the city. This answer uses the premise of the argument to justify the conclusion, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions rarely vary from the same pattern—a judgment in the conclusion is based on a few details of the situation, and the correct answer connects the two (from the details to the conclusion).

Incorrect. The two problems here—limited parking, traffic congestion—build into each other, and the solution is meant to address both, so this answer doesn't reflect the situation in the stimulus.