PrepTest 126

Incorrect. This definition of being judgmental is provided to support the conclusion that there's wisdom in not being judgmental. In other words, it's a premise.

Incorrect. This is a claim that the author thinks there is little plausibility behind, so it can't serve as the main point of the argument.

Incorrect. The author says there's "little plausibility" to this claim—that's a disparaging comment meant to highlight the lack of plausibility, not to highlight that there is some plausibility.

Incorrect. This answer is the premise supporting the initial argument, the one that the author pivots away from to her main point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Argument 1 - People assess each other, sometimes negatively, so you shouldn't criticize people for being critical.
(Pivot) Argument 2 - Being judgmental is to assess someone negatively without trying to understand them, so you shouldn't be judgmental.

Answer Anticipation:
Our summary has some subtle shifts in degree in it, but we went for simplicity over exactness. This is, after all, a Main Point question, so it's more important to understand the contours of the argument than it is to precisely outline every aspect of it. Getting too in the weeds in logic and flaws in this question type generally only serves to slow you down!

This stimulus is interesting in that the author essentially makes two complete arguments! The first has to do with criticism; the second with being judgmental.

The first two lines in the argument aren't an opposing point—the author is making a judgment about the claim that it's absurd to criticize people for being critical. Those two lines would be a perfectly acceptable stimulus in and of themselves, and normally, the author's opinion of an opposing point is the main point of an argument.

Here, however, after making this argument, the author pivots to discussing a related but distinct concept—being judgmental. When an author pivots but doesn't shift away from an opposing view to her own argument, she's either adding in information that seems to contradict an earlier point and will resolve the two issue, or she's moving on to another argument that will serve as her main argument, with the pre-pivot argument serving as a sort of concession to some other view.

The latter is the case here—the author concedes something about being critical at first to show that she's actually discussing a distinct concept—being judgmental, or being critical without an attempt to understand.

This second argument follows a similar structure, in that the author explains her opinion of a given view (here, that the view that you shouldn't be judgmental is wise) and then why she feels that way. As with the initial argument, her opinion of the view serves as the main point of this portion of the argument, with the rest of the argument serving as support for it.

So the main point of the argument is that there's wisdom behind not being judgmental. And we should expect the opening line to show up as a trap answer!

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the author's main point. It's the conclusion after the pivot, with the opening argument serving as setting a baseline against which being judgmental can be contrasted to highlight why being judgmental is unwise whereas being critical is fine.

Key Takeaway:
Pivots aren't always away from opposing points. Sometimes, the author will make an argument to set a baseline against which her main argument can be contrasted to highlight a key difference she's relying on to reach her conclusion.