PT23.S3.Q20

PrepTest 23 - Section 3 - Question 20

Hide analysis

Helen: Conclusion It was wrong of my brother Mark to tell our mother that the reason he had missed her birthday party the evening before was that he had been in a traffic accident and that by the time he was released from the hospital emergency room the party was long over. ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████

Objective: Identify the Main Conclusion

Since this is a Main Conclusion question, we want to break down the stimulus in a way that clearly identifies the support relationships at play. Those support relationships are the most foolproof way to find the argument's conclusion: the conclusion will be supported by one or more premises, and the premise(s) will give us a reason to believe the conclusion.

Stimulus Breakdown

In the stimulus, Helen discusses her brother Mark's excuse for missing their mother's birthday party. Helen makes three statements: (1) that it was wrong of Mark to claim that he missed the party because he was in a traffic accident; (2) that saying something false is always wrong; and (3) that Mark's excuse was false. Notice the types of statements: (1) is a value judgment about something Mark did, (2) is a principle that applies generally, and (3) is a factual claim about what happened to Mark.

These types of statements come together to form a rule-application argument pattern. In this structure, the premises are the rule and the factual statement, and the conclusion is the value judgment. That's because by applying a general rule to a specific situation, the speaker is able to support a judgment about that situation based on the rule.

For Helen's argument, that means that statement (1) is the conclusion, while statements (2) and (3) are support.

Show answer
20.

The main conclusion drawn in ███████ ████████ ██ ████

a

Mark did not ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████

This is an inference that we can make from Helen's statements that Mark said he was in an accident and that the accident never happened. However, the idea that Mark lied helps to support the claim that Mark did something wrong, which is the true conclusion.

b

the real reason ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ██

This is a factual claim that Helen makes about Mark's actions. But because it shows us that Mark lied to their mother, this claim supports the main conclusion that Mark acted wrongfully.

c

it is wrong ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ███████

Helen doesn't actually make this claim, so it's not part of the argument at all. Helen says as a premise that's it's wrong to lie, but (C) doesn't describe an untruthful claim. (C) would apply even if the claim in question was true.

d

it was wrong ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ████████

This is the main conclusion supported by the rest of the argument. Helen says that it's always wrong to lie, and that Mark lied about being in an accident. That supports the conclusion that Mark acted wrongly.

e

it is always █████ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████

Helen states this as a premise. Together with the claim that Mark was untruthful, this helps to support the conclusion that Mark did something wrong.

Confirm action

Are you sure?