PrepTest 102

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
I: People want a good value, so hiring appraisers to ensure we have authentic antiques would increase sales.

A: Our customers are experts, and appraisers would drive up costs/prices, so it wouldn't increase sales.

Answer Anticipation:
It would be easy to mistake this question for a Point at Issue question, but it's actually a Methods of Reasoning question! We're looking to describe how Anika responds to Inez's argument. And that response serves as a rebuttal.

When the second speaker is rebutting the first in a Methods of Reasoning question, we should go through a set of questions:
(1) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the conclusion of the first speaker? If the latter, does she think that the conclusion is wrong or just unsupported?
(2) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the premises of the first speaker? Does she question the logic or an assumption? Does she raise new considerations?

Here, Anika definitely thinks that Inez's conclusion is wrong—she disagrees with the prediction. She doesn't disagree with her premise, however—in fact, Anika doesn't discuss poor economic times or looking for value at all! Instead, she brings in new considerations—that their customers are already experts, and appraisers would drive up the costs of the antiques they sell, resulting in fewer sales.

So Anika disagrees with Inez's conclusion by bringing in new considerations. Let's find an answer reflecting that.

Answer Explanation:
While this answer doesn't speak in the generic terms of our anticipation, it does bring up Anika's response. Inez's plan is meant to increase sales. Anika disagrees with that, using new considerations to show how it would actually decrease sales.

Key Takeaway:
When a second speaker is rebutting the first in a Methods of Reasoning question, we should go through a set of questions:
(1) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the conclusion of the first speaker? If the latter, does she think that the conclusion is wrong or just unsupported?
(2) Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the premises of the first speaker? Does she question the logic or an assumption? Does she raise new considerations?

Incorrect. To be effective, the plan would need to increase sales. Anika doesn't believe it will increase sales, so this answer is wrong in stating that the rebuttal makes that claim.

Incorrect. Anika doesn't propose an alternative plan to raise sales; she brings up new considerations to show why Inez's plan won't work.

Incorrect. If anything, Anika believes that there are more authorities with special knowledge—not just the appraisers, but the customers who are antique experts.

Incorrect. Anika disagrees with Inez's prediction—she doesn't think that it's too broad, and she speaks too generically for her answer to serve as a counterexample.