Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 3 · Question 6

Incorrect. This answer describes a premise for the opposing point, but the statement in question is a premise supporting the main point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Many people Ð If a forest fire isn't put out ASAP, the Forestry Department is failingRebuttal Ð Without smaller fires, the conditions for larger fires would happen, so letting these small fires burn is best.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features an opposing point ("Many people") that is rebutted by the Forestry Official. As such, it'll be important to note whether the statement in question is part of the opposing point or the author's argument, and whether it's a premise or conclusion.

Here, the statement in question comes up after the author pivots ("But"). When there's a pivot away from an opposing point, it can be to a premise or conclusion. Here, the pivot is a general fact about forest fire management, and it's followed by a "Therefore" statement that disagrees with the opposing point, so the statement in question is a premise supporting the main point.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the statement in question as a premise for the main point. The opposing point is that the Forestry Department isn't doing its job if it lets small fires burn, but the Official establishes that isn't the case because it's best practice to let those ones burn. The statement in question supports that view by explaining why it's a best practice.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure that you pick an answer that reflects the argument for Argument Structure questions. Don't pick an answer that describes the role the statement could have had in another argument, but rather the role it has in the given argument.

Incorrect. This is a very solid trap answer, but it fails in stating that the purpose of the statement is to show the impact of allowing popular opinion to determine policy. While the statement in question does highlight what the consequence would be if the forestry department were to have a policy reflecting popular opinion, it isn't set up to explain what would happen if it intentionally based policy on popular opinion. These Argument Structure questions need to properly describe the function of the statement within the argument, not what the statement might do in a different argument.

Incorrect. An example meant to highlight that claim would show people believing the fire department should extinguish fires quickly—e.g., a survey, focus group, or recent petition.

Incorrect. It's not a conclusion, it's a premise explaining why it's best to let small fires burn.