PrepTest 146

Incorrect. Winston doesn't discuss the rule about awarding a prize to deceased individuals, so this answer is out of scope of his argument.

Incorrect. Neither speaker talks about other fields with enough specificity to back up this answer. While both agree the rules don't provide for full recognition in the scientific fields, that doesn't mean they do provide for full recognition in any other fields.

Incorrect. Sanjay doesn't discuss specific scientific results, so this answer is out of scope of his argument. Even Winston doesn't suggest that prizes shouldn't be awarded for particular scientific results—just that the current rules shortchange some of the team members.

Incorrect. While Sanjay arguably discusses subjectivity in talking about when results are "fully appreciated," Winston doesn't discuss subjectivity at all, so this answer is out of scope of at least his argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid/Valid

Question Type:
Point of Agreement

Stimulus Summary:
W: Nobel Prizes can only be split up to three ways, but important science is done in teams of four or more (so Nobel Prizes fail to recognize everyone involved in important discoveries).

S: Nobel Prizes can only be awarded to the living, and some people die before their work is appreciated (so Nobel Prizes fail to recognize everyone who does important work.)

Answer Anticipation:
First, note this is a Point of Agreement question, not a Point at Issue question—these are very rare compared to the other, so it's important to note when they show up, as answers that highlight a disagreement are frequent trap answers.

Second, note that we threw the implied conclusion from both arguments into parentheses. Neither speaker explicitly states that there are problems with the Nobel Prizes, but they both make statements following the same structure: Establish a rule, and then pivot to a situation where the rule fails to recognize someone who deserved it. So both statements lead to the same implied conclusion—the Nobel Prizes aren't awarded to everyone who has contributed in an important manner to the field.

And it's good that they both lead to the same implied conclusion, because they both talk about completely different rules and groups who are neglected by the prizes! There's no direct overlap in their premises, so the correct answer will have to be the implied conclusions.

Answer Explanation:
By indicating shortcomings of Nobel Prize rules—individuals who make important contributions but aren't awarded a Prize—each speaker implies that Nobel Prizes aren't perfect indicators of who has contributed to their discipline. In bringing up an example of this answer choice, they both would agree with it.Key Takeaway:Always double-check the question stem when you're in a Point at Issue or Point of Agreement question! The latter is so rare that it's easy to think you're in the wrong question type. It'd be a shame to run out of time on this section while trying to find a point of disagreement between Sanjay and Winston because you miscategorized the question.