PrepTest 149

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Ted: I'm underpaid, so I'm going to work fewer hours.

Tatiana: While others have to pick up the slack, Ted makes important contributions, so I'm not going to replace him.

Answer Anticipation:
We framed our Summary by splitting up the position of Ted and Tatiana, but it's important to recognize that both of their statements are established as facts in this stimulus. That said, Tatiana's reasoning is in spite of what Ted believes and is doing, so there must be separate criteria by which she's reaching her judgment that doesn't rely on what Ted thinks. At most, Ted's "argument" will feature as a throwaway "in spite of" phrase in the correct answer.

With that noted, we should apply our normal process for Principle (Strengthen) questions—identify the judgment in the conclusion and the premise(s) that the argument uses to justify it, and then find the answer that connects them.

Here, we're tasked with justifying Tatiana's reasoning, and her judgment is that she shouldn't replace Ted. Why not? It's noted that he makes great (and possibly unique) contributions at work. So those will need to be connected:

If someone makes valuable/unique/possibly irreplaceable contributions, then they shouldn't be replaced.

And remember, there might be an additional clause (" . . . replaced even if it's known that they put in fewer hours"), but that's not necessary for a correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer does justify not replacing a worker by setting up a necessary condition for replacement—the contrapositive will establish a sufficient condition for not replacing them. Here, that sufficient condition is if the supervisor isn't sure that someone's work can be done equally well by another worker. The stimulus notes that Ted makes "unique" and "perhaps irreplaceable" contributions, making it clear that it's uncertain someone could do his job equally well. Since Ted meets the sufficient condition here to not be replaced, this answer justifies Tatiana's judgment not to replace him.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions will frequently throw extraneous information or additional viewpoints at you to distract you from the main argument. This is why it's such a good idea to start with the conclusion—see what the argument is trying to justify, and it's a lot easier to focus just on the information that supports that judgment in some way.

Incorrect. Tatiana's judgment is about replacing Ted, not altering his compensation, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer would justify Tatiana not being authorized to replace Ted, not deciding against it.

Incorrect. This answer would apply to Ted and his co-workers who pick up the slack, not Tatiana, the supervisor.

Incorrect. This answer might justify a conclusion that, despite his lower total hours, Ted can still make a solid contribution, but it doesn't justify not replacing him. It's possible that his contribution doesn't make up for the morale issues he causes.