Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 10

Incorrect. While being shoved from behind is listed as a potential cause of whiplash injury in the premise, the conclusion states that LIC's treatment should be requested after "any accident that involves a fall or a bump on the head." Since the conclusion doesn't recommend LIC's treatment after being shoved from behind, information about that potential source of whiplash won't undermine the argument.

Incorrect. The argument already establishes that auto accidents can cause whiplash, so it doesn't need to connect those accidents to the general types of injuries that can result in whiplash. Additionally, if anything, this answer is aligning with the argument, not undercutting it.

Incorrect. The argument's conclusion is about accidents involving falls and bumps on the head, so other types of accidents are out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Ad: Many different types of accidents—from car accidents to falls—can cause whiplash. So after any accident that involves your head, you should insist on LIC's complete whiplash treatment.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is very broad—LIC's treatment should be used after "any" accident that involves a fall or bump on the head. Even though these types of accidents "can" cause whiplash, it could be the case that the vast majority are too minor to have a chance at causing whiplash, and a complete course of treatment may be overkill. Any answer that highlights this degree shift—"can" cause whiplash to "any" accident should result in whiplash treatment—will weaken this argument.

Also, note the subtle shift between the list in the premise and the list in the conclusion. The premise talks about being shoved from behind, while the conclusion doesn't. That might lead to a trap answer about being shoved from behind, which isn't a part of the conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
Unlike (A), this answer establishes that the types of accidents listed in the conclusion are unlikely to cause whiplash. If that's the case, then it calls into question whether LIC's treatment is necessary after any of these injuries, undermining the argument in the ad.

Key Takeaway:
Always use the conclusion to gauge the scope of the argument! This argument features a common shift—the premises establish a list, but the conclusion only applies to a portion of it. That shift was important to note in seeing the difference between answer choices (A) and (D)—one of which was correct and the other of which was wrong.

Incorrect. The appropriate treatment for whiplash being the same no matter what the source of that whiplash aligns with the argument that one treatment (LIC's treatment) should be insisted on after any injury that might have caused whiplash.