Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 4 · Question 9

Incorrect. The argument is about the effectiveness of a course of action, not the culpability, so this answer about whether or not someone is absolved of the harm they caused is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
Airline carbon offset fees go to projects that would have happened regardless of someone paying that fee, so no carbon emissions are prevented and these schemes are ineffective.

Answer Anticipation:
We need to find an answer that connects the premises to the conclusion, which states something was ineffective. Why does the author believe it's ineffective? Because the outcome would have happened regardless of the action taken. So the correct answer will say that if something would have happened regardless of the action, then that action in ineffective.

Answer Explanation:
Not exactly what we were looking for, but this answer states that the outcome—the carbon offset—isn't a consequence of the fee since it would have happened anyway. If something isn't leading to the desired consequence, then it's, by definition, ineffective, and this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
For Principle (Strengthen) questions, the answer is all about connecting the premises to the conclusion. Find the gap and then find your answer!

Incorrect. There's no indication that anyone is financially benefiting from a certain action, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. If the argument were about whether someone should pay the fee, this answer would be in scope. But since it's just about the effectiveness of an action, this answer about what one should do is out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no language in the stimulus about anything being the largest source of carbon emissions, so this answer is out of scope.