PrepTest 110

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Facts

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/NA

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
C: In 10 years, there have been 20 collisions between planes and birds resulting in damage, and 0 passenger injuries, so the bird refuge doesn't pose a safety risk.

P: But the vast majority of those collisions happened recently, and there are more birds than ever. As the number of birds goes up, so does the likelihood of injury from a crash.

Answer Anticipation:
We're tasked with describing how the Pilot responds to the Conservationist, and the Pilot here is rebutting something from that argument ("You neglect to mention"). When that's the case we want to figure out the rebuttal's opinion of the opposing conclusion and how it gets there—in other words does it disagree with the premises assumption or conclusion? Does it bring in new information add information or contradict information?

Here the Pilot doesn't question any of the Conservationist's numbers. Instead she adds context—while there have been only 20 collisions the vast majority were recent. She also brings up new information and a new relationship—there's a growing bird population and more birds means a higher likelihood of a collision resulting in injury. While she doesn't state that this means the refuge does pose a safety risk her statements clearly are designed to suggest that.

So we should look for an answer stating that the Pilot doesn't question the data of the Conservationist but she brings in new information that adds context and suggests that the Conservationist's conclusion is wrong.

Answer Explanation:
The Pilot doesn't question the Conservationist's statistics just the context around them. She also states that the Conservationist "neglect[s] to mention," suggesting that there is a bit of misleading going on. This answer doesn't encapsulate everything we anticipated, but it does correctly describe the accusation of the Pilot along with the adding of context to the facts brought up by the other side, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When the first speaker in a two—speaker stimulus brings up stats, see if the second speaker accepts them or rejects them. This is a distinction that's almost always relevant to the correct answer.

Incorrect. The Pilot never mentions the motives of the Conservationist.

Incorrect. This answer is too broad. The Pilot notes that the current situation is getting more dangerous over time as the number of birds increase but there's no indication that this is inevitable for all dangerous situations.

Incorrect. There's not really a moral principle up for debate—it's a question of whether something poses a danger, not what's the right thing to do.

Incorrect. The Pilot adds context to the figures, but she doesn't call their accuracy into question. The only number she specifically mentions—the 20 collisions—she accepts as true.