Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 2 · Question 3

Incorrect. This answer describes the circular reasoning flaw. None of the premises state that the sale shouldn't be allowed through; rather, they give reasons for not allowing it to go through.

Incorrect. Since this argument limits itself to a discussion of the iron-mining industry, this answer is out of scope. If the author had jumped from premises about the purchase of iron-mining companies to a conclusion stating that foreign companies should be banned from purchasing any company, then this answer would be a potential correct answer.

Incorrect. First off, the argument argues against a practice (allowing the sale of a company), not for one. Second, there's no discussion of any practice being widely accepted.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Manufacturing is important to the economy. Manufacturing needs a steady supply of iron. If one iron company is bought by a foreign company, others can't be stopped from doing the same. Soon, the entire industry will be owned by foreigners, and there will no longer be a steady supply of iron. The sky is falling! Ahem, I mean, we shouldn't let this iron company be purchased by a foreign corporation.

Answer Anticipation:
Holy speculation, Batman! There's a big jump here between one company being purchased, and the entire industry ending up owned by foreign corporations. The argument assumes the worst possible outcomes along each step of this process, when there are plenty of other possible paths.

Answer Explanation:
When the argument states that, "Soon foreigners will control . . . " it treats a potential outcome as definite. That's an error in reasoning, and so this is our correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Pay attention to the small words that denote certainty. Here, the key word to unpacking the error in reasoning is will, which is a word conveying absolute certainty in an outcome. It's generally hard to predict the future with absolute certainty, so an argument that attempts to do so is probably flawed because of it.

Incorrect. While slightly sensationalist, the author at least gets the potential outcome here chronologically correct.