PrepTest 134

Incorrect. First, this answer qualifies the analogy, which wasn't directly related to the support for the conclusion. Second, "some" examples of the investment in maintenance not working out doesn't affect an argument about whether it's wise to make such an investment, as investments are always a matter of managing risk, not trading in guarantees.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Columnist: Other cities have invested in an economic adviser and saw a return on this investment, so it was wise for our city to do the same.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot of extraneous information in this stimulus. The argument starts with an analogy, for instance, but we ignored it in our Summary. Why? Because analogies help us to understand a situation, and here, the Columnist gives an actual reason to believe the conclusion of her argument.

Instead, the argument boils down to this: something made other cities money, so it'll make this city money. However, that relies on other cities and this city being relevantly similar—if they're different in some key way, then what worked there might not work here.

Since this argument relies on a similarity between the cities, any relevant difference will weaken it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a relevant difference between the other cities and the Columnist's city—it has a much smaller economy. Since the argument is about the wisdom of spending money on an economic adviser, and that is based on the cost of the adviser versus how much their advice improves the economy, a smaller economy (based on a smaller population) might mean that the cost (which presumably doesn't shrink much) might not be worth it. In bringing up a relevant difference, this answer weakens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies on two things being similar to reach its conclusion, then relevant similarities will strengthen that argument, and relevant differences will weaken it.

Incorrect. This answer, again, addresses the analogy, and since the argument doesn't rely on it to reach its conclusion, answers about it can't affect the argument.

Incorrect. Without establishing that this city council isn't willing to spend enough to get a qualified adviser, this answer doesn't undercut the argument.

Incorrect. The Columnist discusses long-term growth, so answers addressing short-term issues are out of scope.