Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 1 · Question 22

Incorrect. Since produce prices are listed as the cause of the increase in personal gardens, what causes the increased produce prices is only relevant if it calls into question that relationship (e.g., if the increase in personal gardens caused the increase in produce prices). Since fuel costs don't have any impact on that relationship, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the number of personal gardens, not the size of them, so this answer is out of scope. This answer would need to connect the garden size to the purchasing of produce to be relevant. (And if you were thinking that less produce could be made in a smaller garden, it's possible that advances have allowed more to be grown in less space.)

Incorrect. While this answer does suggest that people are more interested in personal gardens (which community gardens are comparable to), it doesn't speak to why that's the case, so it doesn't have an effect on the argument.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the overall economy in this stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Last year: 2 seed companies sold more seeds; produce prices spikedConclusion: Produce price increases cause people to plant gardens.

Answer Anticipation:
There are a few issues here, but, at its core, this argument jumps between a correlation (seed sales; produce prices) and a causal conclusion (produce price spikes cause home gardens to be planted. As with all Weaken questions that feature a correlation/causation flaw, we should anticipate a common set of answers (ID an alternative cause; counterexamples; reversed causality).

However, there are also two other issues here. First, the argument jumps from seed sales increasing to personal gardens being planted. Without connecting those ideas, that's a jump itself that could be undermined in the correct answer. Also, the seed sales themselves aren't established to have increased—it's based on the sales of the two largest companies, but they could have just taken over a larger share of the market.

In short, there are a lot of flaws in this argument that can be attacked in a correct answer, so we need to stay flexible.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice attacks the assumption that an increase in seed sales at the top 2 retail seed companies proves that there was an increase in overall seed sales. If the increase in sales at the top companies was driven by a company going out of business, the overall market size may have stayed the same. Note that even if you missed that and were looking for a correlation/causation answer, this answer choice directly addressed something relevant to that relationship—seed sales—and so you should have dug in.

Key Takeaway:
In the harder Logical Reasoning questions that feature faulty reasoning, there will be more than one flaw present. In Strengthen and Weaken questions in particular, this creates such a wide field of what a correct answer can look like. If you feel yourself getting overwhelmed by the possible answer choices, start by identifying key elements of the stimulus, and eliminate answers that fall out of the scope of those elements. Then, with only 2-3 answers left, you should be able to narrow your focus and not feel overwhelmed anymore.