Support In order to maintain a high standard of living, a nation must maintain a functioning infrastructure. █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ █ ██████ ████ █ █████████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ █ ██████ █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ █ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████████
The author concludes that if a nation’s standard of living is on the rise, it must have invested heavily in improving its infrastructure. She supports this with two conditional premises:
(1) To maintain a high standard of living, a country needs to maintain a functioning infrastructure.
(2) Investing in infrastructure will raise the country’s standard of living.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “investment in infrastructure” as necessary for “rise in standard of living.” But according to premise 2 above, “investment in infrastructure” is sufficient, not necessary.
In other words, the argument fails to take into account that a nation’s standard of living could improve for other reasons, without major investments in infrastructure.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████
a nation that █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████
The author’s conclusion is about a nation experiencing a rise in its standard of living as a result of investment in its infrastructure, not a decline in standard of living as a result of failing to invest in infrastructure.
many nations are ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████████████
Like (C) and (E) this may be true, but it doesn’t impact the author’s argument. Even if many nations can’t invest in infrastructure, it doesn’t affect the conclusion that such investments are necessary for a higher standard of living.
the rise in █ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███ ████ █ ████ ████ ██ █████
Like (B) and (E) this may be true, but it doesn’t impact the argument. Even if the rise in standard of living takes a long time, it doesn’t affect the conclusion that investments in infrastructure are necessary for it to occur. The author even notes that it happens “over time.”
a rise in █ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████████
The author mistakenly assumes that investments in infrastructure are necessary, rather than merely sufficient, for a nation to experience a rise in its standard of living. But a nation’s standard of living could improve for other reasons, without investments in infrastructure.
nations often experience ██████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████████
Like (B) and (C) this may be true, but it doesn’t impact the argument. Even if a nation can’t invest in infrastructure, it doesn’t affect the conclusion that such investments are necessary for a higher standard of living.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.