Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 2 · Question 8

Incorrect. Unless = IF NOT, so this boils down to IF NOT Effective Treatments, then NOT Train Doctors. The contrapositive, Train Doctors ==> Effective Treatments also doesn't help. We're looking for something that defines when doctors SHOULD be trained, not when they shouldn't.

Incorrect. ONLY IF introduces the necessary condition, so this rule says IF changes in the way doctors are trained are warranted, THEN there are changes in treatment options. Again, this isn't helpful in strengthening a conclusion that doctors SHOULD receive training.

Incorrect. As funny as this sounds in the real world, we aren't actually trying to strengthen a conclusion about how doctors can do the most good. We're only interested in whether or not they should be trained in treatments for obesity.

Incorrect. Similar problem here. We don't need a rule for what doctors should focus on, we need a rule for when they should receive additional training.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Obesity is becoming the leading cause of preventable illness, but nearly half of doctors don't feel qualified to advise patients on their weight. So, doctors should be trained in treating obesity.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion introduces a new concept not found in the premises, "doctors should be trained." So, to connect the premises to the conclusion, we need a rule that tells us when doctors should receive training. Anticipate the common form of "If (Premise) Then (Conclusion)" though, as always, it may not be worded that simply in the answer choices.

Answer Explanation:
Here we go! This doesn't initially look like "IF premise, THEN conclusion," but just do a little paraphrasing and you can easily get to "IF something is an underlying cause of preventable illness, THEN doctors should be adequately trained to treat it." Notice that this doesn't absolutely prove the argument; there's still room for a little bickering about whether or not additional training is the same as "adequate" training. But in a Strengthen question, we can accept an answer that just moves the argument a bit closer to "fully valid."

Key Takeaway:
IF premise, THEN conclusion is the easiest way to form a rule ("principle") that connects a set of premises to a given conclusion. The contrapositive, IF NOT conclusion, THEN NOT premise is also acceptable.