Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 3 · Question 3

This is a much broader statement than the second sentence of this argument. The columnist believes there are at least two specific situations in which solving a problem doesn't require finding the root cause, but that doesn't mean that the columnist believes solving a problem never requires finding the root cause. The columnist does not necessarily think this statement is true, so it cannot be the columnist's main point.

This misconstrues the columnist's main point ever so slightly. The columnist states that we don't need to know the cause of the recession to solve it. That doesn't mean that the columnist thinks knowing the cause of the recession wouldn't allow us to solve it.

To use a favorite device of this columnist and argue by analogy: if you feel sick, you don't need to know what caused your illness to feel better. Usually, rest and fluids will help you out. But knowing what caused your illness could still help you feel better more quickly — you could take certain medications that could expedite the healing process. Perhaps the same is true of the recession.

The columnist concludes we don't need to know the cause, not that it wouldn't help. So, the columnist does not necessarily believe that this answer choice is true, and it cannot be the columnist's main point. 

Unlike (A) and (B), the columnist believes this statement is true. But it is not the columnist's main point. The tone doesn't suggest that this sentence is the takeaway point the columnist wants to leave us with. Additionally, none of the columnist's statements help explain why or how there's a hot debate over what caused the recession. Because no premises support this assertion, it is not the columnist's main point.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
The columnist concedes that we're still debating what caused the current economic recession, before asserting we don't need to identify the cause to improve the economy. The columnist backs this up with an admittedly out-of-nowhere analogy to corrective lenses — they were solving myopia (nearsightedness) long before we knew the cause.

Strategy Overview:

1. Identify the conclusion
2. Identify the premises
3. Make sure the premises support the identified conclusion, and that the identified conclusion does not support anything else in the passage
4. Find the answer choice that restates the conclusion

Answer Anticipation:
Our job is straightforward on Main Point questions: find the main conclusion the author wants to convey. When looking for those conclusions on Main Point questions, it can help to look out for "shift" words — like "however," "but" and "nevertheless" — which many authors use when expressing their main conclusion. In this columnist's argument, we get a prominent "however" right in the middle of the second sentence, making that sentence a likely candidate for the conclusion of this argument. We also see authorial tone in this sentence ("mistake"), which is another clue that this is the main point the columnist wants to convey.

But spotting a "shift" word or authorial tone isn't dispositive. To confirm that the second sentence is the conclusion, we need to identify the premises of this argument and verify that the premises support that second sentence. The first sentence doesn't do much to support any other statement in this passage. The analogy to corrective lenses in the last sentence, however, looks like a premise. Analogies usually serve as premises, and the phrase "after all" suggests that the columnist uses this as a premise. And, in its off-kilter way, the analogy provides support to the second sentence. The second sentence asserts that we can fix the economy without figuring out what caused the recession in the first place. The analogy shows we once did something similar: we used corrective lenses to treat nearsightedness before knowing the cause. In other words, we've done something similar before, so we can do it again. (We could quibble with just how similar myopia and economic recessions really are but, fortunately, we need not concern ourselves with validity on Main Point questions.)

So the second sentence has support from the analogy, which makes it a conclusion. And because that second sentence doesn't add support to any other statement in this passage, it's the argument's main conclusion. So now we just need to look for an answer choice that expresses the same idea as that second sentence.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This is it. This answer choice expresses the same idea as the second sentence, which we've identified as the columnist's main point. It's the takeaway point the columnist wants to leave us with, and it's supported by the central premise in this argument (the analogy to corrective lenses).

Key Takeaway:
"Shift" words, like "however," and authorial tone in the same proposition are two strong indicators that the proposition is the argument's main point, but they are not dispositive. To confirm that the statement is the main point, you still need to confirm that premises support the statement, and the statement isn't used to support anything else in the argument.

This refers to the columnist's only premise in this argument. We can surmise that this is a premise both from the phrase "after all" (a standard premise indicator) and the fact that it supports why the columnist thinks we don't have to figure out what caused the recession before attempting to fix the recession. Because this answer choice refers to a premise and not the main conclusion, it is incorrect.