PrepTest 137

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Performed in a few hundred years → Skillfully explore human nature
Play released over last few years → not Skillfully explore human nature
Therefore - Play released over last few years → not Popular in a few hundred years

Answer Anticipation:
While conditional logic is more common in Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions than Necessary ones, it does show up. When that happens, the argument will generally follow one of two patterns. Either it'll present a single conditional and then apply it to a specific scenario, or it'll present a set of conditionals that chain together but miss a link in reaching the conclusion. Here, with our multiple conditional premises and conditional conclusion ("none"), we're in the latter camp.

Starting with the pivot ("but"), we get a prediction, which is almost certainly the main point of the argument. The conditional statements that follow back up why the Critic believes these plays won't be popular in a couple centuries, so it is the main point, and the last two clauses are premises supporting it.

Just looking at that real quick, with a careful diagram, we can see where the gap is—the premises talk about performances, but the conclusion talks about popularity. We'll need to diagram this out to figure out what the connection is we need (the direction, the negation state), but at the end of the day, we'll need to connect performance to popularity for this argument to work. (Though see the note in the correct answer.)

Since the two premises do share a term but it's on the same side of the arrow and negated, we should take the contrapositive of one. Since the second premise already shares a term with the conclusion and it matches up (side and negation), we should chain them together by contraposing the first premise:

Play released over last few years → not Skillfully explore human nature →
not Performed in few hundred years
Since the conclusion starts in the same place but ends somewhere else, we should connect the end of the premise chain to that end of the conclusion in our anticipation (and take the contrapositive of that):

not Performed in few hundred years → not Popular in few hundred yearsPopular in few hundred years → Performed in few hundred years

Answer Explanation:
not Performed in few hundred years → not Popular in few hundred years. This answer presents the connection we're looking for. If performance isn't necessary for popularity, then the argument falls apart. Note that this is also the only answer that connects those ideas, so it was the only answer that could have been correct without diagramming everything out. Don't think this means you can skip over a full analysis of the stimulus! There's no guarantee that's the case, and you don't want to have to go back and do more conditional work after you've lost momentum.

Key Takeaway:
When a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question features conditional logic with multiple conditionals that overlap, diagram them out, chain them together, and see what link is missing between the premises and the conclusion.

Incorrect. High critical acclaim isn't related to performance or popularity, so it's out of scope of the conclusion.

Incorrect. The Critic's statements are inclusive of all plays, not just the ones she read or saw performed, so the argument doesn't require her to have read/seen all plays.

Incorrect. Critical acclaim isn't mentioned in or related to the conclusion about popularity, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is a reversal of the first conditional premise, so it doesn't add anything relevant to the argument.