Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 3 · Question 15

Incorrect. Negation instantly kills this answer. Even if no influential members are interested, the argument holds up. In fact, it might be stronger.

Incorrect. Too vague. We're not aware of the glee club's financial situation, either. Negating this to "most aren't" doesn't make it any less vague. It has no impact on the argument.

Incorrect. We're not interested in necessary assumptions about some other rental agency! We already know of one where they could save money by paying cash today. Negating doesn't make this any more useful, and might even strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. Negating this yields "the club's committee has no responsibilities that take priority over saving money," which doesn't hurt the argument that the committee doesn't care about saving money. They could potentially be apathetic towards their own espoused top priority.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
The glee club could save money on equipment rental fees by paying cash today, rather than waiting until the day of the party next Saturday to rent the equipment needed for it. The committee is going to wait until Saturday and pay the higher price. So, the committee must not care about saving money.

Answer Anticipation:
As always with Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, "what information are we missing?" is a good place to start anticipating. In this case, the first thing that comes to mind is hidden costs for the earlier rental option. If there are no hidden costs greater than the difference in rental price (e.g., storage until next Saturday) the argument is OK, but if there's a hidden cost greater than the price difference, the argument implodes. Or, what about that "paying cash" part? If there's no reason not to pay cash today, the argument stands, but if the club's bylaws say committee members are only allowed to pay for equipment rentals with a club credit card, the argument falls apart. Remember to negate!

Answer Explanation:
When we negate this, it turns into "there isn't enough cash available," which is a decent reason not to pay cash today. No matter how much the committee cares, if they just don't have the cash, they can't take that option!

Key Takeaway:
Watch out for trap answers that broaden the scope of the argument. Necessary assumptions have to be able to destroy the conclusion when negated, so they can't stray too far away from it. We're looking for something that is decisive in its negated form, not something that would merely raise some vague suspicions about the argument.