PrepTest 134

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Problem — Traffic congestion and revenue shortfalls
Mayor's Solution — New charge for driving downtown, monitored by a sophisticated system necessary for enforcement
Problem with solution — The new system won't be ready until the end of the next year
Conclusion — When implemented, the plan won't be effectively enforced

Answer Anticipation:
It's really easy to get lost in all the details of this stimulus, tracking requirements and technology and traffic patterns and congestion and revenue shortfalls and. . .

That's too much! When dealing with an assumption—based question—which Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions are—you should be trying to identify elements in the stimulus that generally lead to flawed reasoning. Here, the conclusion has such an element—it creates a timeline.

The conclusion here talks about "when the. . . plan is first implemented." The premises would need to talk about the same timeline, but they don't. The timeline element in the premise doesn't talk about the implementation of the plan, but instead when the new technology required to make the plan effective will take effect. That timeline is tied to the end of the next year.

Since none of the premises discuss or tie anything else to the implementation of the Mayor's plan, we have no idea when that's supposed to happen. The argument is assuming that it will happen before the technology is up and running, so the correct answer should state that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the gap in the timeline of the argument. If the Mayor's plan won't be implemented until the end of the following year, then the technology will be ready in time for it and the plan can be effectively enforced when implemented. That would make the argument fall apart, so this answer is necessary for the argument to work and is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
In any question, be careful while reading the conclusion, and don't read more into it than is on the page. A lot of these answer choices seemed to treat the author as if she reached a conclusion about the wisdom of the plan, not the effectiveness of enforcement. Noting the scope of the conclusion, and not allowing that understanding to "drift" as you read answer choices, is a way to make some quick eliminations on answers that are out of scope of that conclusion.

Incorrect. While a stated goal of the program is to raise revenue, the conclusion isn't about meeting that goal. Instead, the conclusion limits itself to discussing whether the plan will be effectively enforced, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't about when the plan should be implemented, but rather if it'll be effectively enforced when implemented. Since the author of the argument doesn't state an opinion on when the plan should be implemented or even hint at one in the conclusion, an answer choice establishing when it should be implemented is out of scope. Note that saying it can't be enforced when implemented doesn't imply a belief that it shouldn't be implemented at that time—the author might believe that it can be partially effective even without enforcement, for example.

Incorrect. If the plan can't be enforced, the plan would likely have issues with both of its stated goals, so the relative importance of them is irrelevant to the argument.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about enforcement, not whether the plan is a good idea, let alone whether it's the best idea. This answer is therefore out of scope.