PrepTest 115

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Science
Conclusion - There's good evidence for complexity theory
Reasoning - Computers testing the theory out ended up looking very much like the real world

Answer Anticipation:
When the stimulus is heavily steeped in science, it's important to not get lost in it. As such, it's important to know what type of question you're dealing with and what you need to identify in the stimulus to answer it.

With Strengthen (Principle) questions, we're looking to justify a judgment made in the conclusion of an argument with the details from the reasoning. Since the argument we're trying to justify starts about halfway through the stimulus, we should see if we actually need the information before it to anticipate an answer that would justify it.

Here, the conclusion stated in the middle of the stimulus is that complexity theory has solid evidence for it. What is that evidence? It's the following statements—that computer models built off of the theory mirror the real world. The information preceding the conclusion—the background that's relatively heavy in science—ends up being unrelated to the logic of the argument.

As such, we should focus on the argument portion of the stimulus, and we need to find an answer that justifies the conclusion based on the details. So that correct answer should say something similar to:
If a computerized model based on a theory ends up looking like the real world, then that provides good evidence for the theory

Answer Explanation:
This answer perfectly matches our anticipation. We know that computerized models based on complexity theory do behave like their real-world counterparts. If, as this answer states, that means the theory is probably correct, then there is good evidence for complexity theory, as the scientists conclude.

Key Takeaway:
In Principle questions—especially those where the answers are phrased conditionally—direction matters. We need to find an answer that justifies the conclusion based on the presence of the details in the premises. In other words, we're looking for an answer that takes the form:
If (details in premises), then (conclusion)

The reverse would be incorrect!

Incorrect. This answer reverses the logic of the stimulus. There, the computer models were used to support the theory; this answer has the correctness of the theory supporting the "correctness" of the computer models based on it.

Incorrect. The argument isn't about computers discovering correct theories, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The scientists' theory isn't about whether computer systems are correct, but rather whether complexity theory is correct.

Incorrect. The argument concludes that a given theory is correct, and this answer can justify only the opposite conclusion.