PrepTest 115

Incorrect. Justice Upton says that there is "little reason to suppose" there is anything wrong with the legal system, which isn't the same as this answer. Additionally, that was a premise that denied the presence of the necessary condition of a conditional, leading to the conclusion—in other words, the related statement in the stimulus is a premise.

Incorrect. The Justice believes that the judges are equipped to answer a question about whether a decision made is reasonable, but that's not arguing for judge's to be involved in the decision-making process to begin with.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Question - Is an administrative decision by a government minister reasonable?

JU: not Judges equipped to answer that question → Legal system is bad
No sign that legal system is bad
Therefore - Judges should be equipped to determine if an administrative decision is reasonable

Answer Anticipation:
The logic of this question is actually a bit complex. Justice Upton establishes a speculative conditional that she then applies to this specific case. However, we don't need to understand all of that to find the main point.

Rather, we can focus on that "should" statement. Such statements are almost always conclusions—especially when they're judgment drawn. In addition, the Question/Answer structure generally presents the answer as the main point. Here, there is no answer, but Justice Upton does weigh in on who can answer it. Both of these patterns lead to the same conclusion—that the main point of the Justice's argument is that judges should be well-equipped to determine whether an administrative decision by a government minister is reasonable.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects Justice Upton's opinion about a judge's ability to answer a question, so it's the main point of the argument.

Key Takeaway:
"Should" statements are almost always the conclusion of an argument. The most common exception to this rule of thumb is a should statement that is presented as a principle that is then applied to a specific case.

Incorrect. This answer is the illegal reversal of the conditional premise—two reasons to eliminate it!

Incorrect. This answer is the illegal negation of the conditional premise—two reasons to eliminate it!