PrepTest 154

Incorrect. Whether the English people want their archaeological objects housed in museums or not is irrelevant to the question of how a particular law is performing in securing their access to their archaeological heritage. People may want things that are not in their best interest.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
This is an argument resting on a single example, with a brand-new concept in the conclusion (English people's archaeological heritage) that doesn't appear directly in any premise. In other words, the argument is extremely weak. It boils down to "because the current law didn't require this object to be offered to an English museum, the current law is not adequate to ensure English people have access to their archaeological heritage."

Answer Anticipation:
The most obvious thing you'd have to assume in order for this argument to be potentially valid is that the example is relevant. If the example is not relevant to English archaeological heritage, it proves nothing about the usefulness of the law to which it refers. So, expect a correct answer choice that affirms the Roman helmet is relevant to English people's access to their archaeological heritage (it's been a while since fifth-grade history, but wasn't Rome in Italy?).

Answer Explanation:
Exactly what we anticipated: a direct connection between the example and the conclusion. Negate this and the whole argument falls apart, since the example is no longer relevant to the question of whether or not the law is serving its intended purpose.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments by example must prove that the example is, in fact, an example of whatever is claimed in the conclusion. If the example is not directly connected to the conclusion, the entire argument becomes invalid. You can't, for instance, argue that apples are nutritious by describing a study that found people's health improved when they ate oranges. So, whenever you see an argument resting on a single example, check to see if the key concepts in the conclusion are also found in the premises. If they're not, the argument is highly vulnerable to attack.

Incorrect. This answer choice displays a fallacy of equivocation. It uses the word "valuable" in reference to monetary value, when really the concept of value we care about here is the archaeological value to the English people. But that's mostly just an interesting, incidental observation, since the biggest issue here is that if you negate this, it does nothing to the argument.

Incorrect. If this was untrue, it wouldn't matter to the argument. The law cited requires that English heritage objects be offered to museums at reasonable prices. So, had the law applied, even if the collector was willing to pay more, the museum would still have had first crack at the helmet.

Incorrect. Same issue as (D), if the issue is about the law not applying at all to the Roman helmet and whether or not this makes the law inadequate, it doesn't matter if England has the most well-financed museums on Earth or the poorest ones. The law didn't apply to the helmet.