PrepTest 130

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses people who "should" undergo mediation, not those who actually do, so this answer is out of scope. Someone who shouldn't undergo mediation might, and someone who should might not.

Incorrect. Those whose conflicts aren't based in ideology aren't discussed in the stimulus, so we can't draw any inferences about them.

Incorrect. This answer attempts to connect the second and third conditionals, but they don't share a term to allow such an inference.

Incorrect. Being sure of your position isn't a sufficient condition, and we can't draw an inference by combining the second and first statements anyway.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
(1) Should undergo mediation → Willing to compromise
(2) Should pursue litigation → Sure your position is correct
(3) Conflict based on ideology → not Willing to compromise

Answer Anticipation:
This Must Be True question starts with two "only" statements, and only is a necessary condition indicator, so we should diagram those out, as we did in the Summary. Doing so, we can see that the statements don't share a term, so we can't make an inference by combining them.

The third statement is arguably conditional, though if you viewed it as an absolute statement that triggers the first conditional, that's fine, as well. In either case, this statement overlaps with the first in that they both discuss willingness to compromise. Since this answer talks about an unwillingness to compromise, and the first statement talks about a willingness to do so, we should take the contrapositive of one of the two to get them to line up. We're going to take the contrapositive of the first statement since that one is clearly conditional:
not Willing to compromise → not Should undergo mediation

Since people who have conflicts based on ideology aren't willing to compromise, the first statement guarantees that they shouldn't undergo mediation. Let's find an answer stating that.

One final note—if you tried to combine the first and second conditionals by relating undergoing mediation and pursuing litigation, that was a mistake since there's no indication that mediation and litigation are the only two options for resolving a conflict. Since any chain combining those two would require you to assume that those who shouldn't pursue one should pursue the other, those chains aren't valid.

Answer Explanation:
People whose conflicts are based on ideology aren't willing to compromise, and so they don't meet a necessary condition for mediation. Therefore, they shouldn't undergo mediation, as this answer states. This answer is the valid inference made by combining the first and third statements from the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Sometimes, there will be inherent connections between two terms that will allow them to be connected despite being different. For example, if something is cold, then it isn't hot. However, in other cases, drawing such a connection when it isn't inherently true is flawed. Here, assuming that someone who shouldn't undergo mediation should undergo litigation is flawed, since there are other options. You could ignore the problem, or go through arbitration, or even flip a coin.