PrepTest 138

Incorrect. There's no discussion of other dogs, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Other breeds are out of scope—the stimulus is about registered cocker spaniels, and a found cocker spaniel.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about a cocker spaniel found in the area of Flynn Heights, so this answer about dogs found in other areas is out of scope.

Incorrect. In talking about pets instead of just dogs (and, really, cocker spaniels), this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Evaluation

Stimulus Summary:
Flynn Heights has more registered cocker spaniels than all other neighborhoods combined, so a cocker spaniel found in the area is likely owned by a Flynn Heights resident.

Answer Anticipation:
If there are more cocker spaniels living in Flynn Heights than all other neighborhoods combined, then a cocker spaniel found in the area does likely belong to someone who lives there. So what's the flaw?

Always look at qualifiers! The premise isn't about cocker spaniels living in these areas, but rather about cocker spaniels registered in these areas. In order to analyze the conclusion, then, we'd need to know that the number of registered cocker spaniels is representative of the total number of cocker spaniels. In other words, are FLynn Heights cocker spaniels more likely to be registered than others?

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump between registered cocker spaniels and the total number of cocker spaniels in this area. If residents of Flynn Heights are equally likely to register their dogs as residents of other areas, then the argument holds together. If they're less likely, it also holds together. If they're more likely, it falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Pay attention to qualifiers! The premise here wasn't about cocker spaniels—it was about registered cocker spaniels. Qualifying the larger group means that it's only talking about a subset of that group, and thus the argument may be skewed.