PrepTest 116

Incorrect. This answer might strengthen an argument that it's not bad for the country that this one community has shifted from farming to technology, but it doesn't speak to how the residents should feel about that shift, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is about the value that the area has as a high—tech area to national security, not to the residents. Since it's not about their preferences, this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Rural past — Economic depression
High—tech present — So many more jobs, and many high—paying jobs
Conclusion — Losing that farming way of life shouldn't be viewed as tragic

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument very much speaks for other people—the Resident claims that others should feel a certain way about their rural past. And why should they be happy about the shift to a high—tech area? Because it went from economic depression to an area with many jobs, and many that pay well.

However, there's no indication that the people in the area wanted more jobs, or at least wanted them at the expense of farming as a way of life." In reaching a conclusion about how people should feel, it's important to know what they value. And in assuming that's a better economy, this Resident makes a leap.

Any answer that establishes jobs/economic opportunity as more important than a rural way of life will therefore strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the preferences of the residents, stating that they don't value that old way of life more than economic prosperity. If that's the case, then the shift from an economically depressed farming economy to a thriving high—tech one shouldn't be viewed as tragic by the residents, so this answer strengthens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the subjective view of a group is mentioned, the argument is suspect. Without specific premises about their subjective views and preferences, a conclusion talking about it can't be valid.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't add much that we don't already know in stating that the residents have more economic opportunity now, so it doesn't do much for the argument. It also doesn't discuss their preferences.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests that a farming way of life is more important to some than economics since the loss of the former but not the latter is seen as a tragedy, which would cut against the conclusion.