Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 2 · Question 16

This doesn't match our anticipation. Moreover, it doesn't bring up the new idea from the conclusion — that children "should not have pets." Instead, it discusses who takes care of pets for children. This answer choice doesn't definitively establish that certain children should not have pets, so it doesn't make the conclusion valid.

This doesn't match our anticipation. It doesn't connect the psychologist's premise to their conclusion ("If a child doesn't understand that animals are independent creatures with feelings and needs, then that child should not have pets"). Instead, if we take the flipside of this answer choice, we'll see that it connects the psychologist's conclusion to their premise ("If a child should not be allowed to have pets, then the child is not old enough to understand that animals are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs"). The correct answer to a Strengthen with a Sufficient Premise question should resemble "Premise → Conclusion." It can't go the other way — it shouldn't resemble "Conclusion → Premise." For this reason, (B) is incorrect.

This doesn't match our anticipation. Like (A), it doesn't even bring up the new idea from the conclusion — that children "should not have pets." Instead, it discusses whether children do have pets. Whether children have pets is irrelevant to this psychologist's prescriptive conclusion that suggests that certain children are not old enough to have pets. Because this answer choice doesn't definitively establish that certain children should not have pets, it doesn't make the conclusion valid.

This doesn't match our anticipation. Moreover, it doesn't bring up the new idea in the conclusion — that children "should not have pets." Instead of connecting the premises to the conclusion, this answer choice just connects the two premises. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't definitively establish that certain children should not have pets, and it doesn't make the conclusion valid.

This answer choice matches our anticipation! As we anticipated, it connects the psychologist's premise to their conclusion. We may need to diagram this answer choice and take its flipside to see that it bridges this gap. To do so, we can recall that the phrase "the only" comes before "if" conditions. That gives us this diagram:

Child should have a pet → Child understands that pets are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs

Once we take the flipside of this, we'll get:

Child does NOT understand that pets are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs → Child should NOT have a pet

This is more or less what we anticipated. If we add this premise to the psychologist's argument, it becomes valid. Suppose that (E) is true. In that case, we know that most children under six don't understand that pets are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs. Therefore, most children should not have pets until they're at least six years old. So, this answer choice makes the psychologist's argument valid. We can select it and advance to the following question.