Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 4 · Question 12

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Computer simulations are cheaper than crash tests, so if those simulations end up providing as much info as live tests on safety features, manufacturers will use fewer of the latter.

Answer Anticipation:
Spending less money to get the same information is almost always better, so these companies will want to save money. However, note the condition that's applied to the conclusion—it's not about cost, but rather about information about safety features. Those aren't raised anywhere else, and it's never established that the goal of crash tests is just to assess safety features. Maybe there is other information that can be gained from live tests that computer simulations would be unable to determine. This is an example of an incomplete comparison—we haven't learned that computer simulations provide all equivalent information to live tests, and the conclusion limits itself to being conditioned on only getting the same safety information.

Answer Explanation:
If these live crash tests are mostly to assess safety feature effectiveness, then computer simulations providing that information will likely lower the need for live tests. This strengthens the argument by ruling out other reasons to keep the live tests around and making the information gained by the two tests more similar.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion features a condition ("If . . . "), pay a lot of attention to that condition! It is definitely relevant to the logic of the argument overall. While sometimes adding in a condition is just used to eliminate a potential answer (especially of the type, "If Prof. M is correct in her assessment . . . "), frequently it's related to the analysis of a lot of answer choices and also directly related to the correct answer.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is conditioned on the information from these computer simulations matching that of live tests, there's no need to establish that that will come to pass, and doing so doesn't strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. The ability to produce safer cars is out of scope for an argument about whether car manufacturers will switch the format of their tests.

Incorrect. The cost of the safety features is out of scope of an argument about the means of testing those features.

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is conditioned on these computer simulations being able to provide the relevant information. While normally providing an example of a testing regime working would strengthen an argument about using that testing regime, that example works to strengthen the argument by providing evidence that type of testing works. Here, since the conclusion is conditioned on the testing working (and is based on it being cheaper), providing an example such as the one in this answer choice doesn't strengthen it—the conclusion is based on assuming the testing works.