Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 3 · Question 13

This doesn't even strengthen the argument, so it can't be necessary to the argument either.

The conclusion is an "if-then" statement that puts the "people take a reasoned approach to getting what they want" in the "if" part of the premise. When strengthening an argument, we don't have to worry about making the "if" part come true. The conclusion is already assuming that the "if" part is true. In fact, we can treat the "if" part as a premise if that makes more sense to us. Rather than worrying about making the "if" part come true, we should focus on strengthening the "then" part. In this argument, that would involve showing that a reasoned approach to getting what you want involves not injuring other people.

So, this answer choice, which only addresses whether governments can make the "if" part happen, does not strengthen the argument. (And, for what it's worth, this answer choice only makes the "if" part less likely to be true.) For that reason, we can cross (A) off.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we're using the negated form of answer choice (A)):

"Governments are supposed to prevent people who are trying to get what they want from injuring other people. But, governments alone can convince individuals to take a reasoned approach to getting what they want. So, even if most people take a reasoned approach to getting what they want, the government should not necessarily be less powerful."

This argument doesn't flow naturally. The first premise suggests that governments don't need to be powerful if people aren't injuring each other as they try to get what they want. The "But" part says governments can convince people to take a reasoned approach to getting what they want. That doesn't conflict with the previous sentence, as it seems to align with the government's purpose. So, the "But" makes the second sentence sound a bit awkward. Finally, the conclusion suggests that governments should maintain their power. But if people are reasonable while trying to get what they want, then governments don't need to fulfill their duty of convincing people to be reasonable, and governments probably should be less powerful. So, the conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the "But" statement, either. This means (A) does not pass the backup test.

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

This answer choice doesn't strengthen the argument, so it's not necessary to the argument, either.

The theorist's conclusion doesn't address whether people actually can "promote their own welfare." It doesn't say that people actually can get what they want. Instead, the theorist's conclusion only addresses whether the government's power should be reduced if most people take a "reasoned" approach to getting what they want. Whether people eventually get what they want doesn't matter as long as they don't hurt other people along the way. So, this answer choice, which suggests that people can get what they want even when the government keeps them from harming each other, is irrelevant to the argument. For this reason, we can cross off (B).

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we're using the negated form of answer choice (B)):

"Governments are supposed to prevent people who are trying to get what they want from injuring other people. But, the government cannot serve its purpose without diminishing people's ability to promote their own welfare. So, even if most people take a reasoned approach to getting what they want, the government should not necessarily be less powerful."

This doesn't make a lot of sense. The "But" part suggests that the government gets in the way of people getting what they want. That sounds like a reason to reduce the government's power if you ask us. Especially if, as the "So" part says, most people are reasonable as they pursue what they want. These facts suggest that the government should have less power — not more, as the conclusion says. Since this conclusion doesn't follow logically, (B) doesn't pass the backup test.

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

Bingo. This answer choice strengthens the argument. It's also necessary to the argument.

As we anticipated, this answer choice strengthens the argument by establishing that taking a reasoned approach to getting what you want involves not injuring other people. If people who take a reasoned approach are less likely to injure other people, then the government will have less work to do. After all, the government's purpose is just to stop people from hurting each other as the people pursue their wants. If most people take a reasoned approach, the government will have much less work to do, and its powers should probably be reduced.

We also need to know this to draw the conclusion. If people who take a reasoned approach to pursuing their wants hurt others in the process, then the government would have a lot of work to do, even if most people take a reasoned approach. The government would need power to stop people from hurting each other as they pursued their wants. Therefore, if this answer choice weren't true, we couldn't draw this conclusion. That proves that this answer choice is necessary to this argument.

Alternatively, we can also evaluate this answer choice using the backup plan. Here's the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we negated and simplified this answer choice to make this easier to read):

"Governments are supposed to prevent people who are trying to get what they want from injuring other people. But, people who take a reasoned approach to getting what they want are just as likely to injure other people as those who do not. So, even if most people take a reasoned approach to getting what they want, the government should not necessarily be less powerful."

This makes sense. If people who take a reasoned approach to getting what they want are just as likely to hurt other people, then the government will need to maintain its power to stop these people from hurting others. Since this argument makes sense, (C) passes the backup test.

Therefore, no matter which approach we used, we can be confident that (C) is the correct answer.

This doesn't even strengthen the argument, so it can't be necessary to the argument either.

This answer choice doesn't strengthen the argument because it makes it more likely that people will injure each other as they pursue their wants. If (D) is true, even if just a few people start injuring others, it'll eventually lead to other people injuring them as others pursue their wants. (D) would create a cascading effect, where more and more people injure each other as they pursue their wants. This would require more government intervention, not less. So, this answer choice weakens the theorist's conclusion by showing how more government power might be needed to prevent people from injuring others.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we're using the negated form of answer choice (D)):

"Governments are supposed to prevent people who are trying to get what they want from injuring other people. But, people who injure other people in the pursuit of their own welfare will not be treated in the same fashion by others. So, even if most people take a reasoned approach to getting what they want, the government should not necessarily be less powerful."

This argument doesn't make sense. The "But" part tells us that injuring others won't lead to more harmful behavior. That suggests that the government doesn't need to do much to prevent people from injuring each other as they pursue their wants. But the conclusion says that even if people are being reasonable as they pursue their wants, the government might need more power. That doesn't follow. The "But" part made it seem like the government doesn't need to do much when a person injures others. So, why would the government need more power when people are being reasonable? This conclusion doesn't follow logically, so it doesn't pass the backup test.

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

This doesn't strengthen the argument. Therefore, it's not necessary to the argument either.

This answer choice doesn't strengthen because it doesn't tell us whether people who are being reasonable as they promote their own interest will injure other people. This answer choice says people who are promoting their own interests won't be injured, but will they injure others? Is there a difference when they're pursuing their interests reasonably? This answer choice doesn't say, so it won't strengthen the theorists' conclusion that the government's power should be reduced if people are pursuing their welfare reasonably.

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

"Governments are supposed to prevent people who are trying to get what they want from injuring other people. But, it's not true that the more interest people have in promoting their own welfare, the less likely they are to be injured by others. So, even if most people take a reasoned approach to getting what they want, the government should not necessarily be less powerful."

This argument doesn't make sense. The "But" part doesn't tell us whether people pursuing their own wants will injure other people. But it does suggest that these people won't be injured by others. So, the "But" part makes it sound like there won't be many injuries. In that case, why should the government be more powerful, as the "So" part contends? This conclusion doesn't follow logically, so it doesn't pass the backup test.

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