Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 3 · Question 14

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will say something like, "assumes that a requirement for the best okra is also a requirement for good okra." So, we can cross off (A) without thinking about it too deeply.

Besides, the food critic doesn't rely on anyone's testimony in this argument. The food critic responds to one of Chris's competitors, who may be biased against Chris, but the food critic doesn't rely on the competitor's testimony. You only rely on someone's testimony when you use the testimony as one of your premises. The food critic disagrees with the competitor and tries to disprove them in this argument. That's a far cry from using the competitor's testimony as a premise!

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will say something like, "assumes that a requirement for the best okra is also a requirement for good okra." We can cross off (B) once we notice that it deviates from our anticipation.

Besides, the food critic doesn't argue that a dish lacks a quality if one of the ingredients lacks that quality. That would look like this: "Since Chris doesn't use good okra, his seafood gumbo isn't good." That's not the argument this critic makes. The food critic just concludes that Chris couldn't make good gumbo without fresh okra. "Good" and "fresh" are two different qualities, so this flaw isn't present in the critic's argument.

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will say something like, "assumes that a requirement for the best okra is also a requirement for good okra." So, we can cross off (C) without spending too much time thinking about it.

Besides, as we discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, this argument does not commit the "converse" flaw or "illegal reversal" this answer choice describes. The food critic establishes, as a premise, that fresh okra is necessary for the best seafood gumbo. But the food critic's conclusion doesn't assert that fresh okra is sufficient for the best seafood gumbo. Instead, the food critic argues that fresh okra is necessary for "good" seafood gumbo.

This answer choice matches our anticipation that the correct answer will say something like, "assumes that a requirement for the best okra is also a requirement for good okra." As we discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, the food critic establishes that fresh okra is necessary for the best seafood gumbo. The food critic then concludes that fresh okra is necessary for good seafood gumbo, as Chris couldn't make good seafood gumbo without it. However, just because you'd need to use fresh okra to make the best seafood gumbo doesn't mean you'd have to use fresh okra to make seafood gumbo that is merely good.

Because this answer choice closely matches our anticipated flaw, we can select (D) and give the remaining answer choice a quick once-over.

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will say something like, "assumes that a requirement for the best okra is also a requirement for good okra." So, we can cross off (E) without hesitating.

Besides, the food critic doesn't overlook the possibility that Chris's might occasionally serve seafood gumbo made with fresh okra. In fact, the food critic assumes that Chris always serves seafood gumbo with fresh okra. Otherwise, the critic wouldn't say that Chris's customers "couldn't count on getting good seafood gumbo, Chris's specialty," if Chris couldn't reliably source fresh okra.