Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 4 · Question 19

Incorrect. No, the store owner doesn't actually acknowledge the existence of any evidence of crime fears hurting their store. So, this couldn't be an accurate description of the problem here.

Incorrect. Personal opinions are valid evidence for a claim about people's opinions. The problem here is that the only people whose opinions were solicited are people disproportionately likely to agree with the shopkeeper's point.

Incorrect. This isn't a problem, because the shop owner's conclusion was only that fears of crime are not hurting their store. If they had said "crime is not hurting the neighborhood," this might be a valid criticism.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A store owner tells us that their customers aren't worried about crime, because the customers they talk to who come in to shop at the store say they aren't worried about crime. Therefore, crime must not be stopping people from shopping at their store.

Answer Anticipation:
So they're basing this conclusion only on people who come into the store? Wouldn't the people who are too afraid of crime to go to the store be, uh, not in the store? Definition of a sampling fallacy there, friend. Expect the correct answer to point that out.

Answer Explanation:
Exactly. The sample is biased; anyone not coming to the store because they are afraid of crime is left out.

Key Takeaway:
The criteria for a correct answer for an Errors in Reasoning question are:

(1) It is a flawed/fallacious method of reasoning.

AND

(2) It is the flawed/fallacious method of reasoning demonstrated in the stimulus.

Trap answers will often meet criterion #1, but not criterion #2. You can't choose a flaw answer without analyzing the stimulus and determining the key flaw in its logic first.

Incorrect. Again, this isn't relevant to the shopkeeper's conclusion that fears of crime aren't hurting their business. They don't need to consider other harms in order to conclude that crime is not causing one particular kind of harm.