Logical reasoning PrepTest 152 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. The argument never establishes that the chief "knowingly tolerated" corruption.

Incorrect. While the corruption is noted as being widespread, that's different from this answer's principle that applies when "all" of the employees are corrupt.

Incorrect. This answer is about when a supervisor shouldn't be held accountable, so it can't justify the conclusion about a situation where the supervisor should be held accountable.

Incorrect. The argument is accountability, not taking corrective action. Additionally, the chief has been in charge for a "considerable length" of time.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
The chief has been in charge of the police department a long time. There's no indication that the chief was corrupt. However, there was widespread corruption, so the chief should be held accountable.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument concludes that someone who is, based on available evidence, not guilty of corruption should be held accountable for that corruption. Why? Because she was in charge of the corrupt organization for a "considerable length" of time. Since the argument doesn't establish that being in charge of an organization when something illegal happens in it creates accountability, the correct answer should connect those ideas:

Someone in charge of an organization for a while when illegal activity occurs should be held accountable for that illegal activity even if there's no evidence they participated in it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that someone in charge of an organization for a long time—as the Chief has been—can't avoid responsibility for widespread corruption in that organization. That connects the situation to the judgment in the conclusion, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
These early Strengthen (Principle) questions are really about the details, and about speed. Understand the situation, come up with an anticipation representing the principle you're looking for, and then eliminate answers as soon as a detail doesn't line up with the stimulus.