PrepTest 142

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Weaken)

Stimulus Summary:Hanlon (trusted community member) Ð "I saw a UFO!"
Newspaper Ð "We're . . . skeptical of that claim."
Letter Ð If Hanlon claimed he saw a rare natural phenomenon, your tone would have been different, so your paper is biased.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a rare example of a Weaken (Principle) question, so we need to shift our thinking a bit. Normally, in a Principle (Strengthen) question—the closest parallel—we'd be looking for an answer that connects the details from the premise to the judgment in the conclusion. Here, however, we want to find an answer choice that conflicts with the stimulus.

We still need an answer that connects with the details in the premises—if those don't match, then the answer doesn't apply to the stimulus. Then, we need those details to justify a conflicting judgment/conclusion—that the newspaper doesn't have an unjustified bias, or that the newspaper's editorial wasn't unduly skeptical.

It's hard to know the exact form that this answer will take, but whatever it is, it will justify the newspaper's position over the Letter's, so let's find an answer choice that matches the details discussed but then sides with skepticism.

Answer Explanation:
The Letter admits that Hanlon's claim is extraordinary, and this answer states that it should therefore not be presented uncritically—i.e., skepticism is justified—unless it's backed by a lot of evidence. Here, the evidence is Hanlon's trustworthy word—hardly a lot of evidence. Therefore, this answer justifies the newspaper's skepticism, conflicting with the Letter's rebuttal, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
Weaken (Principle) questions are relatively rare. When they do show up, you should still identify the details in the stimulus that the author uses to justify the judgment in her conclusion. However, you're now looking for an answer that justifies the opposite conclusion based on those details.

Incorrect. There's no indication that Hanlon's story was acquired only through an intermediary source. The newspaper itself most likely spoke directly with Hanlon, and there's no indication Hanlon didn't run around town telling everyone about his experience with UFOs!

Incorrect. If anything, this answer justifies the Letter's argument that Hanlon's story shouldn't have been treated with skepticism—and the question stem asks us to find an answer that conflicts with that view!

Incorrect. This answer applies to Hanlon's actions, and it's the newspaper's actions/tone that's up for debate in the letter, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The debate in the stimulus is about the tone of a published story, not whether it should have been published in the first place, so this answer is out of scope.