Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 4 · Question 11

Incorrect. That first statement of the stimulus doesn't connect to the other premise, or the conclusion, so it's irrelevant to the logic of the argument. This answer, which connects to that statement, is therefore also irrelevant to the logic.

Incorrect. This answer is too weak to justify a conclusion about what never/always happens.

Incorrect. The argument isn't about good or bad tailors, let alone the best, so this answer is out of scope (don't treat professional as being the same as good/the best!).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Using Pattern → Alter pattern for fabric distortion
Using Pattern + Person doesn't match pattern → Alter pattern to fit wearer exactly
Therefore, tailors always alter pattern to fit wearer exactly

Answer Anticipation:
The argument establishes that tailors alter patterns to match the wearer when the person doesn't match the pattern. However, the conclusion is very extreme–it states that the tailors always alter patterns. That would only happen if they always have a customer that doesn't match the pattern, so that's the answer we should look for.

Answer Explanation:
If professional tailors only create clothing for customers that don't fit patterns, then, according to that second conditional rule, they will always alter patterns. This answer justifies the conclusion and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, the majority will require you to connect a premise to the conclusion. Find the new concept in the conclusion and look for it in the answers. Here, the new concept was the always/never language–it doesn't always have to be a concrete thing!

Incorrect. This answer is about the distortion of the fabric, not matching it to the exact fit of the wearer, so it's incorrect.