PrepTest 121

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Two "supposedly" competing theories on what makes a great national leader:
(1) Leaders shape public opinion
(2) Leaders adeptly react to public opinion

Pivot - These leadership theories aren't mutually exclusive
Why? - All leaders who have passed their agenda did both

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts off by introducing two "supposedly" competing theories on what makes a great national leader, so you should have expected the pivot to the theories not actually competing with each other. We get that pivot, which states the author's opinion on this conflict, so it's almost certainly the main point.

Since the conclusion is a direct refutation of the "opposing point," the flaw isn't a misinterpretation of what that opposing point is, so it must be in the premise used to support that conclusion.

And that premise is part of a common method of reasoning—it attempts to provide a counterexample. If the author can show that the two theories can "coexist," then she's successfully rebutted the claim that they're mutually exclusive.

The counterexamples she raises do show a leader who is both shaping and reacting to public opinion, so the gap isn't there. Instead, it's in the applicability of these examples! The conflicting hypotheses are over what "makes for a great national leader"—not what makes for a leader who has success getting their programs passed. The argument assumes that a leader who has such success is a great national leader—so let's find that answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the counterexamples raised are dealing with a situation applicable to the initial viewpoint. If having success getting programs passed isn't indicative of being a great leader, then the leaders raised by the author aren't necessarily relevant to the opposing point, and the rebuttal falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
When a rebuttal relies on a counterexample, check to make sure that the counterexample it raises addresses the topic of the opposing point!

Incorrect. While the argument does require the assumption that one person can both react to and shape public opinion, it doesn't require that doing one of these things is reliant on the other. Even if they're independent actions, the argument could still hold true and someone who does both could show that they're not mutually exclusive.

Incorrect. The argument requires that someone who is a great national leader do so, but that's more specific than just "lead[ing]", so this answer is too broad.

Incorrect. The argument discusses passing programs through the legislature, but that doesn't presume a good rapport with members of it. Rapport is out of scope of the argument.

Incorrect. One potential way to adeptly react to public opinion is to be swayed by it, so there's no requirement in the stimulus that a great leader not let this happen.