PrepTest 158

This is very tempting! But it slightly misstates the premise. According to the developer, constructing the road isn't necessary to strengthen the town's economy. Constructing the road is necessary to build the apartment building. And the apartment building would strengthen the town's economy. But that doesn't mean we need to build the road to improve the economy. There could be many ways to improve the economy outside the road and apartment complex!

(If you're following this "if-then" logic, we have "Apartment Complex -> Road" and "Apartment Complex -> Improved Economy." We cannot validly conclude that "Improved Economy-> Road," as this answer choice states.)

Since this answer choice mischaracterizes the developer's premise, it cannot connect the developer's premise to their conclusion.

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." If we diagram this, here's what it would look like: "Should vote to complete project -> Project will benefit every resident." Experienced test-takers will immediately recognize that this claim is backward (it goes "Conclusion → Premise"). This won't help the developer prove that Sierra residents should vote to fund the road because we can only draw conclusions about the "then" condition when applying an "if-then" statement. (The flipside wouldn't help us either, as that is "Project will not benefit every resident -> Should not vote to complete project" — this would only help us conclude that Sierra residents should not vote to fund the road.)

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." It mischaracterizes the developer's premises and conclusion. If we diagram this, here's what it would look like: "Fund a project -> Should use tax and not debt." This principle could be used to make conclusions in situations where we know that a town will fund a project. In those cases, we could conclude that they should use a tax. But we don't know that Sierra will definitely fund a construction project. We need a principle that tells Sierra residents to vote to fund such a project! This principle doesn't compel Sierra residents to vote to fund a project, so it doesn't strengthen the developer's argument.

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." If we diagram this, here's what it would look like: "Resident required to vote to complete project -> Project benefits resident." Experienced test-takers will immediately recognize that this claim is backward, more or less (it more closely resembles "Conclusion → Premise" than "Premises → Conclusion"). This won't help the developer prove that Sierra residents should vote to fund the road because we can only draw conclusions about the "then" condition when applying an "if-then" statement. This premise would only allow us to conclude that residents who were required to vote for the road will benefit from the road. But no premises establish that any of the Sierra residents are required to vote for the road. That's what the developer is trying to prove with the conclusion!

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Passage Summary:
If the builders will complete the Glen Veil apartment building, then a road must connect the building to Sierra. The Glen Veil apartment building would strengthen Sierra's economy. A stronger economy would benefit Sierra's residents. So, Sierra residents should vote to fund the road's construction.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always an argument, so identify the conclusion and premises
2. Identify gap between premises and conclusion
3. Anticipate, and diagram, the principle that will strengthen the argument
1. Should resemble: "Premise → Conclusion" or "NOT Conclusion → NOT Premise"

Answer Anticipation:
The phrase "following principles" in the question stem tells us this is the Strengthen variety of a Principle question. On these questions, we'll need to look for an answer choice that provides a principle, or rule, that connects the argument's premises to its conclusion. To do that, we usually just have to identify the premises and conclusion and then anticipate a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion."

The developer's argument concerns a road that must be built before the builders of the Glen Veil apartment complex will complete the complex. The developer says the apartments will strengthen the economy and benefit Sierra residents. From these premises, the developer concludes that Sierra residents should vote to fund the construction of the road.

So, a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion" will connect the developer's premises about the improved economy or how such an economy will benefit Sierra residents to the developer's conclusion that the Sierra residents should pay for the road, which is required before the apartment complex can be completed. The correct answer could look like, "Apartment building will benefit every resident → Should vote for proposals required to complete apartment building" (e.g., "If the construction of an apartment building will improve the lives of every resident, then the residents should vote to fund a proposal that is required to complete construction").

The correct answer could go broader than the topic of this argument, though. It could apply to any "project" or "undertaking," not just building an apartment building. So, the correct answer could also look like, "Project will benefit every resident → Should vote for proposals required to complete project" (e.g., "If a project will improve the lives of every resident, then the residents should vote to fund a proposal that is required to complete the project"). This would still strengthen the developer's argument because construction of the apartment building would be included under the umbrella term "project," and the road would be included under the umbrella term "proposal." The principle would bridge the developer's premises to the developer's conclusion, strengthening the argument.

Answer Choice Explanation:
Finally, a principle that gives us "Premises → Conclusion." If we diagram this, here's what it would look like: "Project benefits resident → Resident should vote for to fund the project." This strengthens the developer's argument. The road can benefit every Sierra resident because the road is required to complete the apartment complex, eventually benefiting the residents. So, this principle gets the closest to compelling every Sierra resident to vote to fund the road, just as the developer concludes.

We take some issue with this answer choice's statement that the road "would benefit" the residents. That's not necessarily true. The road is required to build the apartment complex, but the road wouldn't guarantee that they'll build the complex, thus benefitting the Sierra residents. (In other words, the passage says "Apartment Complex -> Road" and "Apartment Complex -> Benefit Residents," but that doesn't imply "Road -> Apartment Complex -> Benefit Residents.") This is an issue, but a relatively minor one compared to the other answer choices. Since this principle gets the closest to connecting the developer's premises with the developer's conclusion, (E) is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Most correct answers to Principle questions will take the form of "Premises → Conclusion."