PrepTest 143

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Practice 1 Ð Plant based on phases of the moon; tends to get better results
Practice 2 Ð Plant during the first warm spell in spring; risk losing plants to frost
Conclusion Ð Practice 1 is less likely to lose plants to frost than Practice 2

Answer Anticipation:
When arguments establish a timeline, you should pay attention. Here, Practice 2 is very heavily related to time—it involves planting during spring when the first warm spell strikes. This, however, creates problems when a frost follows that warm spell and some of the plants are negatively affected.

Practice 1 also has a timeline, but it's unclear what that timeline is—it's related to the moon, but who knows what that means? However, the argument does conclude that this results in less frost damage to their plants, and thus it must be the case that, whatever it means to plant based on the phases of the moon, it results in these plants being planted later in the year than those who follow Practice 2.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation and deals with the timeline. If Practice 1 didn't result in planting later in the season, then those who use the moon would be just as susceptible to frost damage as those using Practice 2 and the argument would fall apart.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument establishes a timeline, it's likely going to be relevant to the analysis of the logic. Track what's happening before and after, and fill in any gaps in the timeline if you can.

Incorrect. There doesn't need to be a causal relationship between the phases of the moon and frost for the argument to work. Spring and frost are on their own timeline, and the phases of the moon could just tend to push later into the year.

Incorrect. These gardeners could plant the same types of plants and see less frost damage as long as they do so later in the year and thus are less likely to be exposed to frost.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme in stating it's impossible ("cannot") to improve results without understanding methods—it seems as if someone using Practice 2 could improve their results by shifting to Practice 1 even if they don't know why it works better.

Incorrect. Since the argument is about only amateur gardeners, what professional gardeners do is not necessary to establish for the argument to work.