Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 4 · Question 19

If we identified the gap in this argument, we could confidently pick this answer choice. The gap in the argument occurs when the author says they "misunderstood" the question. They eventually answered Bernie's real question, but the situation poses an unresolved issue: Can you truly answer a question if you misunderstood it? This answer choice resolves that issue. Answering a question only involves supplying the questioner with the information they asked for. So, it doesn't matter that the author misunderstood the question. They gave Bernie the requested information, thus answering Bernie's question.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Bernie asked me whether his project had been approved. I misunderstood and thought he had asked whether I had approved it. I said, truthfully, 'I would approve it if I could. But I don’t have the authority to approve it. Dorothy has the authority to approve it. She hasn't made a decision yet.' Plus, all there is to answering a question is giving the questioner the information requested. So, it's definitely true that I answered Bernie's question."

This makes sense! Bernie asked the question, and the author supplied the requested information. If answering a question only requires giving the requested information, then it's definitely true that the author answered Bernie's question.

Whichever approach we used, we can be confident that (A) is the correct answer. We can justifiably select it and advance to the following question.

This is irrelevant to the argument. The conclusion isn't about whether the author should be accountable for Dorothy's decisions or anything like that. So, this definitely won't make the argument valid. We can eliminate it.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Bernie asked me whether his project had been approved. I misunderstood and thought he had asked whether I had approved it. I said, truthfully, 'I would approve it if I could. But I don’t have the authority to approve it. Dorothy has the authority to approve it. She hasn't made a decision yet.' Plus, no person can be held accountable for another person’s decisions. So, it's definitely true that I answered Bernie's question."

This doesn't make any sense. The part that follows "Plus" doesn't have anything to do with the statements that come before or after it. The insertion of that claim makes this sound like a digressive and confusing paragraph.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (B).

This is irrelevant to the author's argument. Bernie didn't ask if the author could explain why the project wasn't approved. Bernie just wanted to know whether the project was approved. So, this answer choice doesn't make the argument valid. We can eliminate it.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Bernie asked me whether his project had been approved. I misunderstood and thought he had asked whether I had approved it. I said, truthfully, 'I would approve it if I could. But I don’t have the authority to approve it. Dorothy has the authority to approve it. She hasn't made a decision yet.' Plus, the person responsible for a decision is the one who should explain the decision. So, it's definitely true that I answered Bernie's question."

This doesn't make any sense. The part that follows "Plus" has nothing to do with the statements that come before or after it. The insertion of that claim makes this argument sound strange and confusing.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (C).

This is a confusingly worded answer choice, so it may help to translate it into a simple sentence. Here are a few translations you could go with: "Doing the best you can to fulfill a promise doesn't require you to fulfill the promise"; "You don't need to fulfill a promise to do the best job you could have done"; "You can do your best to fulfill a promise without fulfilling the promise."

No matter how we slice it, this answer choice applies to people who did not fulfill a promise. It would only help out people who are unable to fulfill a promise but argue that they did the best they could have done. Therefore, it won't help out the author, who concludes that they did fulfill their promise to Bernie. So, we can cross off (D).

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Bernie asked me whether his project had been approved. I misunderstood and thought he had asked whether I had approved it. I said, truthfully, 'I would approve it if I could. But I don’t have the authority to approve it. Dorothy has the authority to approve it. She hasn't made a decision yet.' Plus, one need not fulfill a promise in order to do the best that could be done to fulfill it. So, it's definitely true that I answered Bernie's question."

This doesn't make any sense. The part that follows "Plus" has nothing to do with the statements before or after it. The statements that come before and after the "Plus" statement don't discuss whether the author did "the best that could be done" to answer Bernie's question. So, the insertion of the claim that follows "Plus" makes it hard to follow this argument's logic.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (D).

This doesn't make the conclusion valid. This answer choice just establishes that the author has an obligation to answer Bernie's question. That doesn't prove that the author did answer Bernie's question. So, we can eliminate (E).

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Bernie asked me whether his project had been approved. I misunderstood and thought he had asked whether I had approved it. I said, truthfully, 'I would approve it if I could. But I don’t have the authority to approve it. Dorothy has the authority to approve it. She hasn't made a decision yet.' Plus, making a promise always obliges a person to keep it. So, it's definitely true that I answered Bernie's question."

This doesn't make any sense. The part that follows "Plus" doesn't relate to the statements that come before or after it. The statements before and after the "Plus" statement don't discuss whether the author is obligated to answer Bernie's question, so the "Plus" claim makes this argument sound nonsensical.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (E).