PrepTest 124

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument picks one of two competing theories, so this answer about suspending judgment is incorrect.

Incorrect. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
There's debate over the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and since no viewpoint is fully convincing, we should go with the traditional view that they're both by Homer.

Answer Anticipation:
For Strengthen (Principle) questions, we need to find an answer that justifies the judgment in the conclusion based on the details in the premises.

Here, that judgment is that we ought to" accept the traditional viewpoint. Why? Because in a debate between a traditional view and a new view, there's no clear evidence that makes one the winner. Those ideas should be connected by the correct answer:
If there's no clear evidence to decide whether a new or traditional theory is correct, side with the traditional theory.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that tradition wins unless there's overwhelming evidence otherwise. Since in the case of the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey there isn't such evidence, this answer justifies going with tradition—as the conclusion states. This principle therefore underlies the argument and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Many incorrect Principle answers are very much about the details. If there's some mismatch between what the principle states and the details of the stimulus, that's enough to eliminate that answer.

Incorrect. This answer would suggest accepting both the traditional and the competing hypothesis, not the traditional one over the competing hypothesis.

Incorrect. There's no indication that there's nontraditional evidence for the traditional hypothesis, so this answer doesn't align with the stimulus. Additionally, this answer seems suspicious of the traditional theory, whereas the stimulus sides with it. And finally, this answer establishes a necessary condition for accepting the traditional hypothesis, and we're looking for a sufficient condition to justify siding with it in the conclusion.

Incorrect. There's only one theory noted as conflicting with the traditional theory, so this answer doesn't apply to the reasoning in the stimulus.