PrepTest 147

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:A requirement is set out for a debate to be productive which a debate over the law of noncontradiction can't meet, so it's pointless to debate the law.

Answer Anticipation:
This is some complicated philosophy. It's very easy to get lost in what's going on here logically. Luckily, we just need to identify the main point of the argument, which doesn't require fully understanding all the contours of it.

Here, the argument starts with an opinion statement—debating a certain law is pointless. That almost certainly requires backing up, and we get that starting in the next sentence—a requirement for a debate to be productive is established. That would justify a conclusion about a debate not being productive (which is a term shift from the conclusion, but one the author is clearly making, and it's not our job to analyze logic here), and the rest of the argument here fleshes out how a debate about the law of noncontradiction would fail to meet that requirement. Since the latter half of this argument is meant to show that a debate on the law of noncontradiction isn't productive, it supports that first opinion statement, making it the main point of the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer restates the first sentence, which the rest of the argument is designed to establish, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Don't get wrapped up in convoluted language or logic in a Main Point question. Use what you know about what conclusions sound like, and about argument structure, to find the main point, and don't worry too much about whether it's valid—or even necessarily what it means!

Incorrect. This answer is a description of the law of noncontradiction—more background than anything else.

Incorrect. This answer establishes the requirement for a productive debate—a premise that, after showing a debate on the law of noncontradiction can't meet it, is used to justify the conclusion.

Incorrect. The stimulus suggests that this law might not be a principle that participants in a debate over it have in common—in fact, it would make little sense for a debate to be held over something both sides agree with.

Incorrect. This is a part of the analysis of the debate showing that it couldn't meet the requirement to be productive, thus serving as a premise.