PrepTest 114

Incorrect. The raisin-throwers would be the person/people involved in the accident, but there could be just a single driver that was involved there, so we can't say the Principal believes there were many children involved in the raisin throwing.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
S: My son is innocent of raisin throwing and everyone knows who the raisin-throwers are, so I'm upset you punished my son.

P: It's like a traffic jam caused by an accident—even those who aren't in the accident get slowed down.

Answer Anticipation:
The Principal's response to Ms. Smith relies entirely on an analogy, so we should figure out how the elements match up. The Principal explicitly states that Ms. Smith's son's situation is "like" being caught in a traffic jam when you're not in the accident. In other words, the son is an innocent party who's still affected by someone else's mistake/wrong-doing. Let's find an answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
The Principal believes that Ms. Smith's son's situation is "like" the innocent people trapped in a traffic jam, so he believes that her son is at the very least potentially not a guilty party, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When someone relies on an analogy, you should "match up" the pieces to see how the different elements relate to each other. This will help you approach the answers!

Incorrect. There's no discussion of police activity, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Principal doesn't discuss Ms. Smith's son's knowledge of anything, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Principal doesn't discuss future activities, nor suggest that traffic jams will cause people to drive more cautiously in the future, so this answer is out of scope.