PrepTest 150

Incorrect. First, the conclusion here is weaker than the stimulus. Second, there's a shift between the conditional and the statement of fact—the conditional is triggered when failure is caused by an economic collapse, and the statement of fact just establishes that an economic collapse coincided with the company's failure. On top of the shift in strength, this answer is also flawed.

Incorrect. This argument is flawed—it commits an illegal negation of the conditional.

Incorrect. This argument is also flawed. The conditional is about what happened (sufficient condition) and what is possible (necessary condition). The statement of fact is about what one person can do, which isn't the same as what is possible (we can't run a 4-minute mile, but it's possible), and the conclusion is about what someone shouldn't do instead of what actually happened.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
If more realistic, audience shrink. Choose to not let audience shrink, so not more realistic.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument presents a conditional rule, states that the necessary condition won't be hit, and then concludes the sufficient condition isn't present. It's an example of an argument that makes an inference through the contrapositive.

Answer Explanation:
If A, then B. But not B, so not A. The exact same structure as the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Practice your conditionals! They should be second nature by the time you take the exam.

Incorrect. The structure here is off, since it features a conditional premise and a conditional conclusion, instead of a conditional premise, a statement of fact, and a non-conditional conclusion.