PrepTest 134

Incorrect. This answer doesn't deal with making sense or interpretation, so it doesn't connect to the main point.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about how people should interpret words, not what promises people should make.

Incorrect. While this answer might be necessary for an argument that concludes "love" should be interpreted to mean something other than feelings, it doesn't justify that that's the case—especially since this doesn't connect back to any of the premises.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Feelings aren't under control
Promising something not under control makes no sense
Thus - "Love" is a feeling → Promising to love makes no sense
Therefore - No one should take a promise to "love" to mean a feeling

Answer Anticipation:
This is another example of an argument that trades in abstract concepts, making it difficult to trace the logic. When this happens, we should start with the conclusion and work backwards. Here, however, there are two! That second sentence presents a statement and follows it up with "for," letting us know that it is a conclusion supported by the following statement. And then the final sentence is introduced with "Thus," so it must be a conclusion.

First, let's take a step back and figure out what the question wants us to do. In a Strengthen with Sufficient Principle question, we need to fully justify the main point of the argument. As such, when there are two conclusions, we need to ensure that the main one is justified. While that might involve justifying an intermediate conclusion if it relies on an assumption and the main point doesn't, that's not usually the case.

With our task defined, let's make sure we have the right conclusion as the main conclusion! Since that second sentence is a conditional about an interpretation making no sense, and the conclusion is about how people "should" interpret a term, it makes much more sense for the argument to flow from that second statement to the final one, making the last sentence the main point.

With that established, let's see if there's a jump between those two statements—if there is, the correct answer will have to fill it, and we can actually ignore the rest of the argument! The argument boils down to: If "love" refers to a feeling, then it makes no sense. Therefore, no one should treat "love" as referring to a feeling. But that has a gap between something not making sense and something not being interpreted in a certain way. Maybe love should be interpreted in a way that makes no sense! We'd have no RomComs if it were interpreted that way.

Since there's a gap between the intermediate conclusion and the main point, and we need to justify the main point, we should find an answer that bridges this gap ("Words shouldn't be interpreted in a way that makes no sense."). If there's more to the answer than that and we have to dig into the premises, we will, but it's unlikely since answers rarely bridge two gaps.

Answer Explanation:
This answer bridges the gap that we identified between the intermediate conclusion and the main point. If "love" is interpreted as a feeling, then a promise to love someone to the end of time makes no sense. If, as this answer says, promises shouldn't be interpreted in a way that means they make no sense, then "love" shouldn't be interpreted as a feeling (relying on the contrapositive of the intermediate conclusion), justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
In a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question, we need to find an answer that guarantees the truth of the conclusion of the argument. If there are two, the main point needs to be justified—so if there's a gap between the intermediate conclusion and main point, the correct answer will have to bridge it.

Incorrect. This answer is a restatement of a premise that was established in the stimulus, so it doesn't add anything that would justify the conclusion.