Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 4 · Question 18

This word salad of an answer choice sounds brings up a lot of familiar words ("condition whose presence would be required") that show up in the correct answer when the flaw is related to the misuse of an "if-then" statement. While the passage features some "if-then" statements, we didn't notice the land developer just flip the order of the "if" and "then" conditions or just negate the "if" and "then" conditions, or any other common flaw related to "if-then" statements. Therefore, we can eliminate this answer choice without thinking about it too deeply.

However, if you need to take a closer look at this answer choice, let's break down this confusingly worded answer choice. It's saying that the land developer confuses a condition — let's call it "X" — whose presence would be required to produce a result (Result → X) with a condition that would be required to prevent a result (NOT result → X). In other words, this answer choice says that the land developer thinks that the same condition is needed for a result to occur and not occur.

The land developer never considers such a condition. The land developer makes two "if-then" statements in this argument. The land developer's premise essentially says, "If any endangered species is on a landowner's land in a nation, the landowners cannot build on that land." The land developer's conclusion essentially says, "If we removed these regulations, the endangered species would probably not be harmed." These "if-then" statements feature different "then" conditions (and the "if" conditions are not a result occurring and the same result not occurring). Therefore, this answer choice doesn't describe the flaw in the land developer's argument.

This is not an error in the land developer's reasoning. The land developer's conclusion doesn't contain any "value judgments" or opinions. The land developer doesn't conclude that these regulations are "good" or "bad," "justified" or "unjustified," or whether we "should" or "should not" keep the regulations. Instead, the land developer's conclusion is factual — if we get rid of the regulations, endangered species probably won't be harmed. Therefore, this answer choice misdescribes the land developer's argument.

This is another confusingly worded answer choice, but it refers to "countervailing effects" that the land developer overlooks. That's pretty close to our anticipation, so we should take a closer look at this answer choice.

When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "overlooks the possibility," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

The land developer says the regulations "tend to produce a given effect." The land developer claims that the regulations discourage landowners from protecting endangered species. If it's true that these regulations "may be likely to produce stronger countervailing effects as well," this answer choice would definitely weaken the land developer's argument. "Countervailing" means "opposite" or "offsetting." So, if the land developer overlooks that the regulations could produce stronger positive effects, then removing the regulations could seriously harm endangered species.

Since this answer choice matches our anticipation and passes our analysis, we can justifiably select it and advance to the following question.

When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "fails to take into account the possibility," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This wouldn't weaken the land developer's argument. The land developer's conclusion doesn't address whether the regulations are in the interest of landowners or land developers. Instead, the conclusion addresses whether removing the regulations would harm endangered species. So, this fact is irrelevant to the land developer's conclusion.

Moreover, we know these regulations aren't in landowners' interest (since they make endangered species "a severe financial liability"). Presumably, these regulations are not in the interest of land developers either (since they can't develop on land where endangered species are present). But, even if there are some policies that are in landowners' interest but not land developers', we know these regulations are not among those policies.

When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "fails to account," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This wouldn't weaken the land developer's argument. The land developer's conclusion addresses whether removing the regulations would harm endangered species. The reactions of private landowners who do not have endangered species on their land wouldn't change whether removing the regulations would harm endangered species. So, this fact is irrelevant to the land developer's conclusion.