PrepTest 149

Incorrect. This answer is similar to our anticipation, but not quite there. The argument assumes that Plastonica built the factory in the area because of the bill, not that they built the factory at all because of the bill.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Bill Ð Tax incentives to move to the area and create 50+ jobs
Critics Ð The bill reduces tax revenue
Example Ð Plastonica moved to the area and hired 75 people
Conclusion Ð The bill has worked

Answer Anticipation:
When an argument claims that something works, it's claiming that it met its goals. In this case, the bill has an established goal of getting companies to move to the area and hire people.

In order to show that this bill has worked, the author brings up one specific example. When a more general point is made using a single example, there are two key considerations: 1) Does this example actually support the point?; and 2) Is this an outlier or a representative example?

For the first question, we can't be sure based on the information that the example of Plastonica supports the point. Sure, after the bill passed, Plastonica moved to the area and hired workers. However, it's never established that they did so because of the bill (in other words, it jumps from a correlation to causation). It's possible Plastonica already had this move and the hiring planned, and the tax incentives ended up being a nice bonus. So any answer that rules out this possibility (or a similar one) will be necessary for the argument to work.

For the second question, there's no indication that Plastonica is just one of many examples. It's possible that the bill created only these 75 jobs while, for other reasons, eliminating more. Any answer that discusses Plastonica being representative or similar to other businesses that have moved in since the bill should be considered.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the incentives as the reason for Plastonica opening the factory in this area, thus reinforcing the conclusion that the bill worked. If Plastonica would have opened the factory even if the bill hadn't passed, that suggests the bill didn't create these jobs as they would have been created anyway and thus it can't be said to have worked, undermining the argument. This is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument is about the actual impact of something, answer choices about beliefs won't serve as necessary premises.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the actual effectiveness of the bill, so claims made by a specific group can't be necessary for that.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that Plastonica was going to open the factory no matter what, which aligns with the view that they were attracted to this locale by the tax incentives, but it's not necessary for that conclusion to hold. It could be that Plastonica wasn't planning on building a factory, but the tax incentives convinced them to do so in this area.

Incorrect. The beliefs of the critics can't determine whether something worked or not, so this answer is out of scope.