PrepTest 149

Incorrect. This answer draws a connection between the two things in the conclusion that the argument states aren't always true individually, so there's no need to connect them for the argument to work.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme in applying to "no" employer. The argument only needs a single example to establish its conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Some companies treat their workers well, so using others isn't always harmful to others.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument reaches a general conclusion based on what "[m]any employers" do. Since the conclusion is very weak ("not always"), there needs to be only one example to justify it, so the premise is strong enough to do so.

However, we need to ensure that the example from the premise applies to the generalization in the conclusion.

Here, there's a jump on both sides of the generalization. First, the argument doesn't establish that these specific employers are using their employees as a means to their own ends. Second, the argument doesn't establish that treating someone fairly means that one isn't acting in a morally reprehensible or harmful manner.

Either of these missing connections could be established by the correct answer, so let's keep our eyes open for both.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the generalization in the conclusion to the specific case brought up in the premises. If no employer uses their employees as a means to their own ends, the conclusion is irrelevant to the case in the premise and thus the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
In general, Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions will have correct answers that are no stronger than the conclusion. Since the conclusion here was particularly weak ("not always"), the correct answer should have been, as well. That's what we found in an answer that talks about "some" employers. (Note that the "or all" is a throwaway—the phrase "some or all" guarantees only that some employers are being described by this answer).

Incorrect. First, these actions being personally advantageous is out of scope. Second, because of the strength of the conclusion ("not always"), the argument doesn't rely on such actions "never" being harmful.

Incorrect. This answer is way too strong in saying something is "not possible . . . without."