PrepTest 102

Incorrect. The premises build a chain that relates computer scientists and those who appreciate a decade of tech advances, so there is an implied connection between them. That implied relationship, though, is the reverse of the one concluded.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Understand PC architecture → Computer scientist
Appreciate decade of tech advances → Understand PC architecture
Therefore - Computer scientist → Appreciate decade of tech advances

Answer Anticipation:
When an Errors in Reasoning question has conditional logic, there's a great chance that the flaw is a conditional logic flaw.

Here, the argument presents two conditional premises and a conditional conclusion, but they are a little difficult to diagram. They're all only statements, and that introduces a necessary condition, leading to the diagram in our Summary.

With all the statements diagrammed out, we should see if there are any flaws related to the conditional logic. And there is a flaw—the premises, when chained together, lead to the following inference:
Appreciate decade of tech advances → Computer scientist

However, the conclusion is the reverse of that: Computer scientist → Appreciate decade of tech advances. As such, this argument features an illegal reversal, so let's find an answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is difficult, but it's correct. How? It doesn't describe an illegal reversal, but it's an implication of an illegal reversal. The inference that can be drawn is that everyone who appreciates the technological advances of the past decade is a computer scientist. That leaves open the possibility, though, that some computer scientists don't appreciate that technology. The conclusion, however, is that they all appreciate the technology. So the argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists don't appreciate the technology, as this answer states.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional logic in an Errors in Reasoning question? There's likely a conditional logic flaw. Start your analysis there.

Incorrect. Other things that computer scientists may or may not appreciate are out of scope of the argument, so we can rule this answer out.

Incorrect. The premises of the argument chain together to suggest a conclusion—just not the conclusion that the argument draws.

Incorrect. The premise explicitly states that only computer scientists understand the architecture of computers, so this answer is contradicted by the stimulus.