Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. Big, huge trap right here. Yes, novels that appeal to the general public make money. That doesn't mean their authors were primarily motivated by money. You can't make that leap without adding in an additional premise saying that any author who makes a significant amount of money was motivated primarily by money.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
The critic begins with a rule: the more any novel appeals to the general public, the more money its author makes. Then, unusually, a second rule: any serious novelist cares about literary style. Finally, the conclusion that no serious novelist is primarily motivated by money.

Answer Anticipation:
Careful here. The first rule doesn't really seem to tie into the critic's conclusion at all, so expect trap answers that try to use the first rule in a way that wouldn't fully justify the conclusion. The only possible route to a sufficient assumption here is to use the only premise that includes something that applies to all serious novelists, since the conclusion says "no serious novelist." A premise about novels and the general public won't get us to a conclusion about all novelists. Instead, expect an answer choice that directly ties caring about literary style to not being motivated by money.

Answer Explanation:
This is exactly what you should have anticipated from the stimulus. A simple, conditional rule saying that IF a novelist cares about literary style, THEN they are not primarily motivated by money. This perfectly ties the second rule to the conclusion, leaving the first rule in the background where it belongs.

Key Takeaway:
Beware of background information in Sufficient Assumption questions. You don't need to use every premise to form your anticipation. "IF premise, THEN conclusion must follow" works just fine with a single premise.

Incorrect. This is a totally new term: "exhibits literary style." We only know something about novelists who care about literary style, not novels that exhibit it. Again, this wouldn't be enough by itself to justify the conclusion.

Incorrect. This is conflating motivation and results. A novelist might write a novel that appeals to the general public out of some other motivation, and end up making a lot of money as a happy accident (if only we could all have that kind of luck!).

Incorrect. This is also a possibly attractive trap, but picture adding it back into the argument as a premise. What conclusions do you get from this and the other premises? Only that some novelists motivated by the desire to make money do end up making money.