PrepTest 146

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Voting records: Old people vote at the highest rate; young people at the lowest rate.Conclusion: Each generation is getting less involved in politics.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus has four issues that suggest specific flaws.

First, a study was done of voting records. However, since the conclusion is about political engagement, a comprehensive view of voting records seems like a large, representative sample.

Second, percentages are discussed. However, each premise and the conclusion are related to percentages/rates/likelihood, so there's no jump between percentages and numbers.

Third, the stimulus is very focused on comparing different groups. However, the premise compares those who are currently old and young, and then jumps to a conclusion about different generations. Is that an acceptable jump? Nope! It's possible that the current older generation was also politically disengaged when they were younger, and that this difference in political engagement isn't generational but rather related to an individual generations' lifetime. In other words, an equally viable explanation is that everyone gets more politically engaged as they age, and this isn't a difference between The Greatest Generation and Millennials.

Finally, the stimulus projects a trend into the future. Is an analysis of the current crop of generations enough to do so? Nope.

So there are two flaws to look for—that comparison flaw, and the prediction flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the bad comparison made. A proper comparison to look generation-to-generation would look at the voting records of those currently old when they were different ages and compare it to the comparable age for future generations.

Key Takeaway:
Short stimulus, but a lot of features that suggest specific flaws. Don't be afraid to go down a few paths before settling on an anticipation! If you know the common elements of arguments that suggest specific flaws, and how to determine if that flaw is present, you can go through this process efficiently.

Incorrect. The premises are about voting rates, not total number of votes, so this answer doesn't reflect a flaw.

Incorrect. A phenomenon can be established without explaining it, as long as the evidence for it is conclusive.

Incorrect. The stimulus deals in correlations, not causation. That said, even if you saw causality here, there's no way that aging could be confused for an effect of political engagement.

Incorrect. The author concludes that citizens "are becoming increasingly disconnected" as time goes on, so she's not overlooking the possibility that there can be even more change in the future. If this answer stated that the author overlooks the possibility that voting patterns among age groups might show an increase in engagement in the future, then we might have a correct answer!