PrepTest 127

Incorrect. The conclusion is that a certain method of increasing donations would work, not that it would be the most effective method for doing so, so this answer is too strong to be necessary. Additionally, it doesn't connect to an increase in donations, so it also doesn't directly address the conclusion.

Incorrect. Maybe the reversal of this would be necessary—that most charities that increased emotional connection also saw an increase in donations. However, it doesn't need to be the case that this method was used by most charities that saw an increase in donations—if there are a variety of other means by which charities can increase donations, it doesn't make it any less likely that this method will work.

Incorrect. This answer largely restates a premise. It's already established that an inability to influence a charity's spending decreases emotional connection, so it doesn't add anything to say that allowing them this power will increase the emotional connection.

Incorrect. This answer is too strong. The argument is about increasing donations, which doesn't require the donors to start out from giving no money.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Not giving donors votes on policy decreases emotional connection to the charity, so donations could increase if donors were allowed to vote.

Answer Anticipation:
One of the most common flaws in Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions (and Sufficient Premise questions, for that matter) is a term shift or equivocation—jumping from a concept established in the premises to a similar one in the conclusion. These can be hard to spot because the concepts are related, and the "closer" they are to each other, the more difficult the jump can be to see.

As such, one useful approach can be to find the "overlap" between the conclusion and premises. Here, both talk about allowing donors to vote on charity policies. In the premises, a failure to do so is noted as reducing the donors' emotional connection to the charity. In the conclusion, implementing donor voting is predicted to increase donations.

That's a jump between two related ideas that should be established in the correct answer—that donors will donate more if they feel more of an emotional connection to the charity.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the concept in the premise to the prediction in the conclusion. If emotional connection doesn't affect how much someone is willing to donate, then there's no reason to believe that increasing that connection will increase donations.

Key Takeaway:
Using a concept that's shared between the premises and conclusion as a "bridge" to understand where the gap in the logic is can be an effective way of handling these questions that are a bit more philosophical/abstract in nature—or that don't have concrete ideas that are chained together. When the same term is connected to different ideas, the argument is probably assuming those different ideas are linked.