PrepTest 73, Logical Reasoning 2, Question 19
Question 19, when a question asks for an assumption on which the argument depends, it is a necessary assumption question. Necessary assumption questions require that we find something that the author hasn't said, but that needs to be true in order for the argument to work. Something that is needed if the conclusion is going to be proven by the evidence that we've been given.
Of course, in order to do that we have to understand the argument, which means breaking it down into its component parts, understanding its conclusion and its evidence. The conclusion of this argument is found at the end, helpfully flagged for us by the conclusory keyword therefore. Therefore, we must enable our children to believe that better futures are possible.
The evidence that gets us here starts in the first sentence. Currently, young people believe that efforts to reduce pollution, poverty, and so on are doomed to failure. Feeling this way is probably bad for the future. Because it means people lose motivation to work on goals that they think they can't reach.
And the author says that we have to do what we can to prevent this loss of motivation. So we have to prevent the loss of motivation. Therefore, we have to enable our children to believe that better futures are possible. This argument has a fairly straightforward assumption.
There are two concepts and the evidence and the conclusion that aren't really linked. What does enabling children to believe that better futures are possible have to do with preventing the loss of motivation that they feel? For this argument to work, they have to be connected. For this argument to work, we have to believe helping kids believe in a better future will prevent the loss of motivation that the author is trying to prevent.
That's what the argument assumes. So we go the answer choices looking for something that says that. Answer choice A is the wrong way around. For this argument to work, we have to believe that. For this argument to work, we need to believe that getting children to believe in a better future will be enough to solve the problem with the loss of motivation.
This answer choice says that if we solve the problem of loss of motivation, in turn, the children's beliefs about the future will get better. It's the opposite of what we wanted. So it's not the answer. Answer choice B is what we wanted. Enabling people to believe that better futures are possible will help prevent the loss of motivation.
That's the connection between the two unconnected concepts from the evidence and the conclusion. B is what we wanted. So let's glance at the other answers to see what's wrong with them. Answer choice C is wrong, although in a subtle way. Pessimism is part of the argument, optimism isn't.
That's easy to confuse, the belief that better futures are possible with optimism, but those two things really aren't the same. Optimism is believing that things are generally gonna go all right. The belief the argument wants here is a more limited belief that things could be better. Things could potentially be better is not the same thing as believing in optimism.
Answer choice D, this answer goes too far. We don't need to believe that the future problems are definitely going to be fixed to believe that in order to fix them, we have to do what this author wants us to do. Answer choice D is telling that if we do it, things will definitely work out. That's beyond what this author is trying to prove.
So it's not our answer, and then answer choice E. This answer is about where the problems came from in the first place, where they stem from, where the problems started, doesn't matter. This argument is about what we need to do to fix them. Their original origin, it's not something that we need to believe anything about. So E is not our answer, the answer was B.
Read full transcriptOf course, in order to do that we have to understand the argument, which means breaking it down into its component parts, understanding its conclusion and its evidence. The conclusion of this argument is found at the end, helpfully flagged for us by the conclusory keyword therefore. Therefore, we must enable our children to believe that better futures are possible.
The evidence that gets us here starts in the first sentence. Currently, young people believe that efforts to reduce pollution, poverty, and so on are doomed to failure. Feeling this way is probably bad for the future. Because it means people lose motivation to work on goals that they think they can't reach.
And the author says that we have to do what we can to prevent this loss of motivation. So we have to prevent the loss of motivation. Therefore, we have to enable our children to believe that better futures are possible. This argument has a fairly straightforward assumption.
There are two concepts and the evidence and the conclusion that aren't really linked. What does enabling children to believe that better futures are possible have to do with preventing the loss of motivation that they feel? For this argument to work, they have to be connected. For this argument to work, we have to believe helping kids believe in a better future will prevent the loss of motivation that the author is trying to prevent.
That's what the argument assumes. So we go the answer choices looking for something that says that. Answer choice A is the wrong way around. For this argument to work, we have to believe that. For this argument to work, we need to believe that getting children to believe in a better future will be enough to solve the problem with the loss of motivation.
This answer choice says that if we solve the problem of loss of motivation, in turn, the children's beliefs about the future will get better. It's the opposite of what we wanted. So it's not the answer. Answer choice B is what we wanted. Enabling people to believe that better futures are possible will help prevent the loss of motivation.
That's the connection between the two unconnected concepts from the evidence and the conclusion. B is what we wanted. So let's glance at the other answers to see what's wrong with them. Answer choice C is wrong, although in a subtle way. Pessimism is part of the argument, optimism isn't.
That's easy to confuse, the belief that better futures are possible with optimism, but those two things really aren't the same. Optimism is believing that things are generally gonna go all right. The belief the argument wants here is a more limited belief that things could be better. Things could potentially be better is not the same thing as believing in optimism.
Answer choice D, this answer goes too far. We don't need to believe that the future problems are definitely going to be fixed to believe that in order to fix them, we have to do what this author wants us to do. Answer choice D is telling that if we do it, things will definitely work out. That's beyond what this author is trying to prove.
So it's not our answer, and then answer choice E. This answer is about where the problems came from in the first place, where they stem from, where the problems started, doesn't matter. This argument is about what we need to do to fix them. Their original origin, it's not something that we need to believe anything about. So E is not our answer, the answer was B.
