Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. Ironic, but no. This could be untrue and yet investors could still think that politicians are responsible for the growth of the stock market, which would still allow the argument to potentially be valid. We're looking for something that, if negated, destroys the argument.

Incorrect. This is a weird way of almost rephrasing a premise the argument already gave us, so it doesn't match the definition of an "assumption," which is always unwritten. It also is a little bit outside the context of the argument, which is about confidence in the economy as reflected by investment choices, not political preferences directly reflected in investment choices.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
A journalist informs us that investors are buying stocks, which means they are confident in the economy. Since people confident in the economy tend to vote for incumbents, the incumbent party can be expected to retain power.

Answer Anticipation:
One good way to tackle NA questions is to look for a fallacy in the argument and anticipate an answer that would destroy the argument by exposing the fallacy. Then, anticipate that your necessary assumption will be the logical opposite of that logic-torpedo that blows up the argument. In this case, there's a big ol' exclusivity fallacy in the stimulus: investors are not the only people who vote, so we can't infer the outcome of elections solely by their preference. So, if this argument is to have a shot at validity, it requires the assumption that this exclusivity fallacy is false, and investors' behavior in some way predicts the behavior of all voters.

Answer Explanation:
Ding ding! Negate this and you get "The economic attitudes of investors do differ greatly from those of voters in general." And if that's true, forget predicting election results with investor behavior.

Key Takeaway:
Flaws aren't just important to notice in Flaw questions. They're often key to solving other question types, including NA and SA. Remember, almost every argument you run into in logical reasoning will be flawed!

Incorrect. We don't care about previous governments, we care about current incumbents.

Incorrect. Even if this were untrue, it wouldn't affect the validity of the argument in the stimulus. People could vote for the incumbent party while not liking the individuals in it.