PrepTest 115

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Known serious scandal → not Reelected AND not Avoid censure
Some prominent politicians are in a serious scandal
Therefore - Those politicians: not Reelected

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus presents a conditional principle, and then it provides enough information to apply it to a specific situation. That's a relatively common pattern for Must Be True questions. Note that neither/nor is an AND statement, not an OR statement—if you have neither peanut butter nor jelly, you're missing both.

However, this stimulus also has a conclusion—and an argument-based Must Be True question is much less common! If we apply the conditional to the specific situation, it allows us to conclude that the prominent politicians won't be reelected and they won't be censured. The stimulus, though, just concludes that they won't be reelected.

As such, since there's an inference that can be drawn that the conclusion doesn't make, we can anticipate the correct answer will bring it up. Let's find an answer stating that these prominent politicians will be censured by their colleagues.

Answer Explanation:
We get the correct answer right off the bat! The principle established in the first sentence allows us to conclude that the prominent politicians shown to be involved in the serious scandal won't be reelected, and they will be censured. The conclusion of the stimulus covers the former; this answer covers the latter.

Key Takeaway:
Neither/nor statements are AND statements, not OR statements.

Incorrect. In almost all Must Be True questions, what would have happened if things were different can almost never be inferred, and this answer is no different. There could be other reasons that a politician wouldn't be reelected other than that they were involved in a scandal.

Incorrect. The stimulus establishes being involved in a serious scandal as sufficient for censure, not necessary, as this answer states.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of what the conspiracy actually involved. It could have been something that benefited them, but it could also be something ridiculous.

Incorrect. The only examples we have are of people involved in a scandal being discovered, so we can't say that others go undetected.