Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 4 · Question 25

This answer choice does not match our anticipation — that most or all of the Bargaining Unit Number 17 members work in the Hanson Building — so we can eliminate it immediately.

Besides, this answer choice wouldn't allow us to make this conclusion. If we diagrammed this premise and added it to the argument's premise, here's what we'd get:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. BUN17 and NOT Computer Programmers → Hanson Building

We couldn't combine these to make a valid conclusion. When we have a "most" statement and an "if-then" statement, we can make a valid connection when both the "if" conditions are the same or when the "then" condition of the "most' is the same as the "if" condition of the "if-then." Neither condition is met here, so we can't make any valid conclusions with this information, much less the conclusion asserted in this argument. So, we can eliminate (A).

This gets really close to our anticipation, but the "executive committee" specification means this answer choice does not match our anticipation — that most or all of the Bargaining Unit Number 17 members work in the Hanson Building. So, we can eliminate (B) immediately.

Besides, this answer choice wouldn't allow us to make this conclusion. If we diagrammed this premise and added it to the argument's premise, here's what we'd get:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. BUN17 Executive Committee (most)→ Hanson Building

We couldn't combine these to make a valid conclusion. When we have two "most" statements, we can only make a valid connection when the "if" conditions are the same. That's not the case here, so we can't make any valid conclusions with this information, much less the conclusion asserted in this argument. So, we can eliminate (B).

This gets our anticipation — that most or all of the Bargaining Unit Number 17 members work in the Hanson Building — backward. So, we can eliminate (C) immediately.

Besides, this answer choice wouldn't allow us to make this conclusion. If we diagrammed this premise and added it to the argument's premise, here's what we'd get:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. Hanson Building (most)→ BUN17

We couldn't combine these to make a valid conclusion. When we have two "most" statements, we can only make a valid connection when the "if" conditions are the same. That's not the case here, so we can't make any valid conclusions with this information, much less the conclusion asserted in this argument. So, we can eliminate (C).

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Completion

Passage Summary:
Most BUN17 members are computer programmers. So, some government employees who work in the Hanson Building are computer programmers since ...

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that:
1. Guarantees the truth of the conclusion

Answer Anticipation:
This is technically an Argument Completion question, but the question stem asks us to fill in a premise that would allow the argument to "follow logically." A premise that allows the argument to follow logically is also known as a "sufficient premise." So, we can treat this question like a Strengthen with a Sufficient Premise question.

On Strengthen with a Sufficient Premise questions, we need to find the answer choice that would make the conclusion valid if we added it as another premise. Before we can figure that out, we'll need to identify the premises and conclusion. Fortunately, they're not trying to hide this conclusion. The word "Thus" indicates that the last sentence — at least the part before "since" — is the conclusion. The preceding sentence is the premise.

About half of these questions include "if-then" or "most"/"some" statements, so it helps to scan the premises and conclusion for sufficient and necessary keywords. The premise is a "most" statement and the conclusion is a "some" statement, so we can diagram out this argument:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. ?

Conclusion: Hanson Building –(some)– Computer Programmers

After doing a lot of Strengthen with a Sufficient Premise questions, you'll notice that most of the time, there's a new term in the conclusion. Which part of this conclusion expresses a new idea? We have a premise about computer programmers, but what about people who work in the Hanson Building? Did any premises tell us which operations are and are not medically necessary? Nope. So, we can't say that some people who work in the Hanson Building are computer programmers.

The correct answer will probably bridge this gap by connecting one of the premises to this new idea. Since the premise is a "most" statement, we can be very formulaic with what we anticipate. There are two ways to get a "some" conclusion from a "most" statement. We can connect a "most" premise with another "most" premise, or we can connect a "most' premise with an "if-then" premise. In both cases, the "if" part of the "most" premise and the second premise will need to be the same (here, "BUN17"). The "then" part will be the new term: "Hanson Building."

So, here are two ways to add a sufficient premise to this argument:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. BUN17 (most)→ Hanson Building

Conclusion: Hanson Building –(some)– Computer Programmers

... or:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. BUN17 → Hanson Building

Conclusion: Hanson Building –(some)– Computer Programmers

In other words, the correct answer will say most or all of the Bargaining Unit Number 17 members work in the Hanson Building.

Let's look for that.

Answer Choice Explanation:
Bingo. This matches our anticipation — that most or all of the Bargaining Unit Number 17 members work in the Hanson Building — backward. So, we can select (D) immediately.

If we diagrammed this premise and added it to the argument's premise, here's what we'd get:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. BUN17 (most)→ Hanson Building

We can combine these to make a valid conclusion. When we have two "most" statements, we can make a valid connection when the "if" conditions are the same. In this case, we have matching "if" statements. So, we can make a "some" conclusion with the "then" parts. That would allow us to draw the conclusion in the passage:

Conclusion: Hanson Building –(some)– Computer Programmers

Therefore, this answer choice provides a premise that would allow the passage's conclusion to follow logically.

Key Takeaway:
Even if you didn't have time to diagram out the "most" and "some" statements in the passage, knowing the rules of connecting "most" statements would allow you to select (D) immediately — it's the only one that shares the "if" condition with the "most" premise. When we have two "most" statements, we can only make a valid connection when the "if" conditions are the same. So (D) is the only answer choice that would allow you to draw any conclusion with the two "most" claims.

This doesn't match our anticipation — that most or all of the Bargaining Unit Number 17 members work in the Hanson Building — so we can eliminate (E) immediately.

Besides, this answer choice wouldn't allow us to make this conclusion. If we diagrammed this premise and added it to the argument's premise, here's what we'd get:

1. BUN17 (most)→ Computer Programmers
2. Hanson Building (most)→ Government Employees

We couldn't combine these to make a valid conclusion. When we have two "most" statements, we can only make a valid connection when the "if" conditions are the same. That's not the case here, so we can't make any valid conclusions with this information, much less the conclusion asserted in this argument. So, we can eliminate (E).