PrepTest 149

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Most cheap handheld vacuums are easy to use and work well on wood/tile floors, so if you need to clean only small, uncarpeted floors, these vacuums are likely to be good enough.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion includes a qualification, and these are almost always important in analyzing the logic of an argument, so we should start by looking at it. That qualification limits the scope of the conclusion to those who need to clean only small areas on uncarpeted floors. The premise doesn't address the size of the floors being cleaned, but it does address the types of floors.

However, there's a jump—the premise is about wood and tile floors, whereas the conclusion is about uncarpeted floors. While wood and tile floors are uncarpeted, there's no indication that there aren't other types of uncarpeted floors. The inexpensive handheld vacuums might be ineffective on other types of uncarpeted floors, and if these make up the majority of floors out there, then these vacuums wouldn't be sufficient for the majority of people.

To strengthen this argument, therefore, we should find an answer establishing that there aren't a lot of floors out there that aren't carpeted, tiled, or made of wood.

Answer Explanation:
The argument's conclusion limits the scope to uncarpeted floors, and the premises establish that the vacuums in question would work well on wood and tile floors. This answer, by establishing that this list of floors makes up the majority of floors, supports the conclusion that the vacuums in question are likely to be generally sufficient.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion has a qualification—a statement limiting its scope—make sure you understand in what way the conclusion is being limited, and how that intersects with the premises. A qualification on a conclusion is almost always relevant, usually in determining the correct answer (though sometimes in eliminating an incorrect answer).

Incorrect. The conclusion is qualified, limiting the scope to uncarpeted floors, so this answer about carpeted floors is out of scope.

Incorrect. The premise and conclusion are about inexpensive handheld vacuums, and the premise establishes that most are easy to use, so this answer is creating connections that either are already established or don't add anything to the argument.

Incorrect. The premises and conclusion are limited to discussing people with vacuuming needs, so establishing that these people exist doesn't strengthen the argument. Additionally, this answer starts by parroting the qualification from the conclusion, and answers that build from the conclusion are rarely correct.

Incorrect. This answer might support a conclusion that a certain type of vacuum is more (or less) expensive, but the premise and conclusion here are both about inexpensive handheld vacuums, so we're not tasked with strengthening that connection.