PrepTest 151

Incorrect. The engineer mentions that she's fine if others do the same thing as she did, but she never states whether anyone else plans to do so, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There is no discussion in the stimulus of benefits to anyone, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Illustration (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
"Yes, we dumped some chemicals in that river. But I fish in it, and I'm fine with other companies dumping chemicals in the river. So I stand by my decision!"

Answer Anticipation:
The engineer's probably not making many friends with that argument . . .

Here, the engineer is justifying her actions by stating that she's will be affected by the consequences, and she's willing to live with them. A correct answer will tie this willingness to the conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
Perfect. The stimulus attempts to justify an action based on being willing to live with the consequences. This answer states that one is justified in an action if they're willing to live with the consequences.

Key Takeaway:
For Principle questions with a conclusion, focus on that conclusion. Many answers can be quickly eliminated because they'd justify the opposite conclusion.

Incorrect. First, this answer would justify not acting; the stimulus is about an engineer who took an action. Second, there's no discussion of an impact analysis—one may have been performed, for all we know.

Incorrect. There's a difference between having a right to do something (as this answer states) and being justified in doing something (as the argument deals with), so this answer is out of scope. Additionally, this answer would line up with an argument about not dumping chemicals, which isn't what we have in this stimulus.