PrepTest 102

Incorrect. This answer describes a Circular Reasoning flaw, but the reason to believe the claims were fraudulent is the low level of damage, so there's independent support for the conclusion.

Incorrect. The conclusion/argument is about a single virus and the alarm around it, so other viruses are out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no causality in the conclusion, so this correlation/timeline/causation answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't rely solely on inflammatory language (calling something fraudulent is arguably inflammatory). It uses the lack of computers damaged by the virus as evidence.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Virus protection companies - A virus is going to hit on a certain date—buy our software to protect yourself!

Advocate - There were barely any computers damaged by the virus, so the alarm over it was fraudulent.

Answer Anticipation:
The stem asks us to find a flaw in the Advocate's argument, so we should look there.

She claims that the alarm over the virus was fraudulent/trumped up because there were barely any computers affected by the virus. Is the lack of damage a good indication that the fears were overblown?

That's a possibility, but there's another possibility, as well—the virus protection software worked! If the alarm was real, and it resulted in people installing software to protect against the virus, then that could also explain the lack of damage.

Since the Advocate overlooks this possibility, we should look for an answer highlighting that shortcoming.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the possibility that we identified as being overlooked by the Advocate. If the alarm led to people installing the software to protect against the virus, then the number of machines damaged would be expected to be low even if the threat was actually quite high.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument explains a phenomenon, the correct answer generally deals with alternative possible explanations. Here, the stimulus raised a phenomenon—the low number of machines damaged by a virus despite a lot of alarm—and posed an explanation—the alarm was overblown/fraudulent. This overlooks the possibility that the alarm worked to get people to address the threat!