Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 12

Incorrect. The total number of jobs and workers available to fill those positions is relevant to the argument, but the split of those jobs between the public and private sectors isn't. Without something connecting what sector those jobs are to how many jobs are available, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. It's unclear if this means that students will or won't pick science and engineering. Unemployment is as high in these fields as others, so there's no benefit to pick any field over another for that reason, and while there's no upwards pressure on salaries, the stimulus doesn't discuss the salary of these fields compared to others. Since this answer doesn't have enough information to see how it impacts the argument, we can rule it out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Many predict a shortage of scientists/engineers, but wages are stagnant in those fields and unemployment is just as high as in other fields, so there isn't a shortage.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument doesn't explicitly connect wages and unemployment to a shortage of workers in a field, but those two areas are certainly related to whether there are enough workers. However, since they don't definitely prove it, we should look for any answer that suggests there are enough scientists and engineers out there to fill any open jobs, or at least that there are enough that there won't be a "catastrophic shortage."

Answer Explanation:
If there are more students studying these fields, then there are more potential workers for these fields. That suggests that there isn't an impending shortage of scientists since more people have been trained in the fields. While this answer doesn't connect to any of the author's premises, it does provide a separate reason to believe the conclusion that there isn't an impending shortage of scientists/engineers, thus strengthening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen questions can be difficult because the correct answer will frequently reference concepts that aren't discussed in the stimulus but are still relevant to it. This is why it's important to frame your anticipation in general terms, allowing specific answers that fall into that general anticipation to pop out as correct even if you never would have predicted that specific answer choice.

Incorrect. If anything, raising the possibility of a shortage in certain areas of science/engineering would raise the possibility of the opposing view having a point, at least in part. Since the conclusion is that the opposing point is wrong, anything that's supportive of their view is closer to a weakener than a strengthener.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to think that there could be a shortage if scientists and engineers stop gaining experience and training, thus limiting the supply. However, when you find yourself saying that an answer to a Strengthen question is correct "if . . . " then you've found a reason to eliminate that answer.