PrepTest 102

Incorrect. It takes longer for the microprinted counterfeits to be detected than the counterfeits of bills made with special ink, meaning that it's easier to apprehend the counterfeiters if the ink is used. This answer provides a reason to go with the ink, strengthening the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Problem - Photocopying technology allows people to easily copy money, including money made with microprinting, that can't be spotted by most people
Solution - Special ink that can't be photocopied and can be spotted by most people
Problem with the solution - The ink is expensive
Conclusion - Swap to the ink despite the expense

Answer Anticipation:
You'll note that our analysis here is very similar to that of the last question—that's because the two question types are very closely related! They're frequently just looking for opposite answers.

The stimulus here features a few elements that we should focus on in spotting the flaw in this argument to work with. It presents a problem (counterfeiting) and a couple solutions (microprinting; ink), compares those solutions (ink is more expensive but more effective), and then recommends the adoption of one solution (ink) despite the problem with it (expense).

Whenever an argument makes a recommendation, it needs to establish the criteria for making that call and compare the potential solutions over those criteria. Here, the argument does compare the two solutions on two metrics, but it never establishes how the recommendation between them should be made! The ink is more effective, but it's more expensive—so the argument is assuming that the effectiveness is more important than the expense.

As such, we should look for an answer suggesting that the added expense isn't worth it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a relative strength of microprinting over using the special ink—the former can't be perfectly counterfeited, but the latter can. If certain counterfeiters can make bills that can't be told apart from real currency, but the same isn't true of microprinted bills, that's a reason to go with the former rather than the latter, weakening the argument. This answer is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen and Weaken questions are flipsides of the same coin. Here, if you look at the correct answer and negate it, you'd end up with an answer that strengthens the argument, and the same with the last question. What you learn about one question type can be applied, with some slight alterations, to the other.

Incorrect. This answer provides a downside of microprinting—it'll become increasingly difficult to tell a microprinted counterfeit from a real bill. As such, this answer provides support for finding an alternative solution to microprinting, which aligns with the conclusion.

Incorrect. It's unclear how the length of time that a given criminal is engaged in counterfeiting speaks to selecting one anti-counterfeiting technique over another, as that doesn't speak to the technology they're using to counterfeit.

Incorrect. First, these costs would be the same no matter what method of security is used. Second, this arguably makes it important to keep the counterfeit bills out of circulation since the costs could be astronomical. That's an argument for accepting the costs of the ink since that security method can be spotted by the average person and thus will prevent circulation of these bills. Third, even that's assuming that the cost of bills circulating is huge—this answer leaves open the possibility that it's actually quite small.