PrepTest 137

Incorrect. The argument discusses whether keeping beehives is economical, which does take into account the benefits of keeping beehives.

Incorrect. While this answer choice does highlight a conditional logic flaw, it doesn't highlight the negation of the statement about keeping beehives and the presence of bees, which is the flaw in the argument. It's also about pollination, whereas the argument is about excellent pollination.

Incorrect. The argument's premise talks about something "usually" resulting in abundant fruits and vegetables, so this answer is wrong.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Excellent pollination → Presence of bees
Excellent pollination usually results in lots of fruits/veggies
1-2 beehives → Presence of bees
Keeping bees economical → Use for homegrown honey
Therefore - not Use for homegrown honey-most-not 1-2 beehives
Therefore 2 - not Excellent pollination

Answer Anticipation:
This Errors in Reasoning question has a lot of conditional logic, so it's almost certainly committing a conditional logic flaw. However, there are so many statements that it's not that easy to just chain a few together to see where it goes wrong. And looking at the answer choices, there are quite a few that bring up conditional logic. So we're going to have to be efficient in our approach here.

Let's start at the place where we should always start when things get difficult—the conclusion.

That conclusion is that there won't be excellent pollination at certain farms. Checking the premises to see if that can be justified, we can see that it can be—if there are no bees, then there won't be excellent pollination. Do we know any condition that guarantees there won't be bees? Nope—the closest we get is that 1-2 beehives guarantee the presence of bees.

How does that relate? Well, the intermediate conclusion that leads straight into the main point is that the farms the conclusion talks about—the ones without a use for homegrown honey—won't have 1-2 beehives. And now it all comes together.

The conclusion is assuming that not having 1-2 beehives guarantees there will be no bees, when the premise actually establishes that having 1-2 beehives guarantees there will be bees. So the argument is illegally negating the third premise in our Summary—it's treating 1-2 beehives → Presence of bees as also establishing not 1-2 beehives → not Presence of bees. Let's find the answer that brings up that specific illegal negation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the relevant illegal negation. It's established that 1-2 beehives will guarantee the presence of bees, and then it concludes that a garden without those beehives won't have excellent pollination. Since the presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, the argument is based on there being no bees because those beehives are missing. So the argument does fail to consider that bees might be present even when there aren't 1-2 beehives—this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When the conditional logic is out of control and multiple answers bring up various conditional logic flaws, start with the conclusion and work backwards to see where the flaw is.

Incorrect. There is no causal conclusion drawn, so this answer is incorrect.