PrepTest 135

Incorrect. The argument establishes that three procedures are allowed on constitutional grounds, but it doesn't rule options out on those grounds. The eliminations are made on practical grounds.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the proper method for determining meeting agendas, not for making all decisions.

Incorrect. There's no suggestion that the constitution be changed. In fact, in relying on the constitution for establishing the list of options under consideration, Lahar is relying on the constitution not being changed.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Lahar: To set meeting agendas, we can use unanimous consent (unlikely), assign a committee (hasn't worked in the past), or have a majority vote. Because of the problems with the first two, we should go with the third.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument follows a common Method of Reasoning—eliminating alternatives. Lahar establishes that there are three ways to accomplish something, provides evidence that two of them are unlikely to work, and then concludes that the third option is what should be done.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the common method of reasoning present here—the elimination of alternatives. Lahar establishes three acceptable options before ruling out two to conclude the other.

Key Takeaway:
There are common methods of reasoning that show up in Methods of Reasoning questions, but a lot of them also show up in other question types. Knowing how to spot the reasoning type is important in all questions, but for others that ask about the logic of these arguments, it's also important to know how these arguments work when they're valid. For example, when using the method of reasoning here—elimination of alternatives—the argument needs to establish a complete list of possibilities and fully rule out all but one alternative.

Incorrect. Lahar presents practical reasons for not going with two alternative options—she doesn't establish that anyone is arguing for the alternatives, let alone argues against them by arguing against those advocates.