PrepTest 155

Incorrect. Since the argument never establishes that politicians should avoid conflicts of interest, this answer doesn't plug a gap in the argument, and it's thus incorrect.

Incorrect. The argument is about how the system should be run (appointments over elections), not how special interests should interact with that system. Be careful for answers that seem to align with the viewpoint of the author!

Incorrect. The conclusion in the argument is that judges should be appointed. This answer sets up a sufficient condition for them not being appointed (Not usually able to avoid conflicts → Shouldn't be appointed).

Incorrect. This answer is out of scope by bringing up other offices that should be changed to appointed positions since the conclusion is limited to judges. Also, this answer, like (C), is a reversal of the argument structure.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
If judges are elected, they will accept donations, which will come from special interests, which will lead to conflicts of interest, so judges shouldn't switch from appointments to elections.

Answer Anticipation:
The premises establish that elections for judges will lead to conflicts of interest. The argument then concludes that judges shouldn't be elected, but rather appointed. The correct answer will connect these two ideas—if something would lead to judges having conflicts of interest, then it shouldn't be done.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our prephrase. If we simplify the structure, it becomes Campaigning likely to create conflicts → Shouldn't be changed from appointments to elections.

Key Takeaway:
For Principle (Strengthen) questions, the correct answer generally just connects the premise to the conclusion. Don't overthink these! And avoid reversal answers, which will almost always come up, especially this far into the section.