PrepTest 143

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that these publications should "give up" writing with mass appeal in mind, which is the one that featured metaphorical writing—that's not suggesting balance.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't deal in recency or relative difficulty of conveying different developments, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Dilemma:

If science writing is to appeal widely, it must be metaphorical, but then the science isn't right

If science writing is more accurate, they fail to reach a wide audience

Solution Ð Science publications should stop trying to reach a wide audience

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions almost always have answers that directly justify the conclusion based on the facts in the premises. As such, it's best practice to identify that judgment in the conclusion and then find the premises that most directly support it.

Here, the conclusion is a recommendation—science publications should stop trying to appeal to a wide audience. Why? Because when they do that, they sacrifice scientific accuracy. Thus, the argument is assuming that scientific accuracy is more important than wide appeal—if not the most important thing for a scientific journal to aspire to. Any answer that prioritizes accuracy and/or appeal should be considered, and the correct answer should set accuracy higher.

Answer Explanation:
This answer creates a prioritization for scientific publications, putting accuracy above wide appeal. Since the argument establishes that a publication generally can't have both, this answer supports the conclusion that wide appeal should be dropped so accuracy can prevail.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions connect details from the premises to the judgment in the conclusion. While any detail from the premise could suffice to justify the conclusion, in general, there are some that are much more directly supportive of that conclusion. Therefore, you should start by identifying the conclusion, and then identifying the premises that you feel most directly support it—and then find the answer that connects them.

Incorrect. This answer creates a prioritization for scientific publications, but it's the opposite of the one the argument relies on—accuracy needs to be more important than wide appeal, not the other way around.

Incorrect. While this answer might establish that metaphorical writing will be involved in any scientific publication, the stimulus specifically noted that writing for wide appeal relies "heavily" on metaphor. Additionally, in raising metaphor as necessary, this answer moves closer to wide appeal, not away from it as the conclusion suggests.