Section 2 Logical Reasoning · Section 2 – Logical Reasoning 1. Analyzing the Stimulus The...

Preptests 54 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

Ivy Global

Section 2 – Logical Reasoning

1. Analyzing the Stimulus The conclusion is decisive: we treat our employees fairly. The evidence is certain: 95% of retiree survey respondents reported that they had been treated fairly while employed.

- This is a conclusion about employees, based on a sample of retirees—is it really representative?

Answering the Question a) There isn’t circular reasoning here—it’s a conclusion based on a survey. b) The evidence was verified via survey. c) “Fairly” has been used the same way in both instances. d) This is the correct answer. The conclusion is about a group that may not be represented

by the sample. e) There is no distinction between old and new methods of managing employees.

Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in reasoning.

2. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: many of those who are most opposed to animal cruelty contribute to this cruelty. The evidence is certain: many of those who are most opposed to animal cruelty keep pets, and the majority of domestic pets are fed meat. The reasoning is implicit and informal, resting on the assumption that feeding pets met contributes to animal cruelty. Answering the Question a) There’s no discussion of a requirement to love all animals. b) We don’t know about people who are opposed to keeping pets; they aren’t talked about in

the stimulus. c) We don’t know if people who work in these departments are opposed to cruelty; they aren’t

talked about in the stimulus. d) If this were true, it would unravel the argument a bit, since the conclusion hinges on feeding

pets meat. e) This is the correct answer. We’re never told that feeding meat contributes to animal

cruelty, but the argument doesn’t make sense unless we know this. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies and bridges the gap in reasoning in the stimulus.


The conclusion is decisive: national reading campaigns have been unsuccessful. The evidence is certain: during the last five years, most bookstores have experienced declining revenue in fiction books, despite campaigns to encourage people to read more of it.


Ivy Global

The reasoning is implicit and informal: it assumes that the decline in fiction revenue in bookstores means that people aren’t reading more fiction. The author neglects to consider that people could be reading more, they are just getting their books from libraries or book swaps or some other place. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. It is mail order book clubs that are seeing the growth in fiction

sales, so maybe the campaign was successful. b) This would strengthen the conclusion by suggesting that people are reading something

other than fiction in greater amounts than fiction. c) Biographies are out of scope—they are not a part the “fiction” genre. d) Books on starting business and new careers are out of scope—they are not a part of the

“fiction” genre. e) This is out of scope, since the reading campaign was only national (and so wouldn’t affect

customers overseas.)

Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies the gap in reasoning and widens it, thereby weakening the argument.


We’re given a strange set of facts here. First, we’re told that people who eat a lot of honey have fewer cavities than other. Then, we’re told that honey is high in sugar, which is one of the leading causes of tooth decay. Answering the Question a) This doesn’t help. Eating a lot of honey could still be the equivalent to, or more than, what

the average non-honey eater consumes in sugar. b) We’re not told that dissolving sugar in liquid changes its affect on teeth, so this doesn’t help

us. c) This is out of scope—we’re talking just about the consumption of honey vs. sugar. d) The stimulus doesn’t specify who consumes more refined vs. unrefined sugar, so we can’t be

sure that this does anything to the argument. e) This is the correct answer. Honey may have a lot of sugar, but it also has bacteria that

inhibit tooth decay. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that touches on both statements and also resolves the discrepancy presented.


It’s easiest to see the flaw in this if we break down the conditional statements: Fail to appear on time for quarterly meeting Suspended Miss two monthly meetings Suspended Thibodeaux was suspended, and never missed a monthly meeting. Therefore, Thibodeaux failed to appear on time for quarterly. Suspended failed to appear on time for quarterly meeting.


Ivy Global

So, we’ve been given two sufficient conditions for suspension, and then we’re told that someone who didn’t meet one must have met the other. What’s wrong with this? These are just sufficient conditions—there could be many more of them. Perhaps Thibodeaux stole money or lost a major sponsor for the club. Answering the Question a) We’re told that he has never missed a monthly meeting, so this is definitely not the flaw. b) This is the correct answer. Byrne presumes that since two conditions are sufficient to

result in suspension, they are the only two events sufficient to result in suspension. c) The reasoning here isn’t circular: it has clear evidence and a conclusion that are separate

from one another. d) This is out of scope—we don’t know this to be true, and it doesn’t affect the argument. e) This is out of scope, since there’s no condition in the argument that relies on the length of

one’s term as an officer. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that correct identifies the flaw in Byrne’s reasoning.


The conclusion is decisive: if recycled writing paper replaces other writing paper, more filler will be required (barring more efficient use of fillers or new whitening technology.) The evidence is certain: recycled papers require more filler than pulp papers to look white. The reasoning is implicit and informal: it relies on the assumption that we will always require our paper to be as white as it is now (that we won’t, for example, just start using grey paper.) Answering the Question a) The conclusion is about writing paper, so other kinds of paper are out of scope. b) This is out of scope. The environment is irrelevant to the determination of how much filler

recycled paper requires. c) This is the correct answer. The argument assumes that we’ll need our paper as white in

the future as we do now. d) This is out of scope—we’re talking about how much filler is required for recycled paper, not

how much whiter we can make pulp paper. e) If this is true, we’ll definitely see an increase in filler use, but it’s not required. Even having

the same amount of paper will increase our filler use.

Double-Checking the Answer This is a necessary assumption question, so if we negate the answer choice, it should cause the argument to fall apart. Indeed, if greyish writing papers become universally acceptable alternatives to white paper, we won’t have an increased need for filler.


The environmentalist begins her argument by telling us that the build-up of CO2 can only be stopped by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. The reduction required by one country reduces its GNP so much, however, that no nation would be willing to bear this cost alone.

- We’re supposed to fill in the blank here—what’s the obvious conclusion? Well, it’s necessary, so it needs to be done, but no one will do it alone. We need some sort of international agreement that requires everyone to reduce emissions.


Ivy Global

Answering the Question a) The economic burdens are what stops nations from reducing emissions, so this doesn’t

make any sense. b) Multinational corporations are not a part of this argument. It’s about nations. c) This is the correct answer. We need an international consensus so that no nation acts

alone. d) There’s no suggestion that there is currently distrust among nations. e) This is taking the need for international agreement too far—it’s way too broad and extreme. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that works as the conclusion based on the evidence given.


We’re given a set of statements here. First we’re told that digital documents have a clear advantage over printed ones, since they don’t generate any waste. We’re also told, however, that a digital document can easily be destroyed and lost forever because of the quality that allows it to conserve waste. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. The technology’s ephemeral quality both allows it to create no

waste and to be easily destroyed. b) We’re given one advantage and one disadvantage, not a large number of problems. c) There’s no judgment on whether the benefit outweighs the cost here. d) We’re not told whether there’s been a decrease in the risk of destroying documents; in fact,

the wording makes it seems as though there’s now more of a risk. e) We don’t know about any increase in convenience. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that generalizes the specific set of statements given in the stimulus without distorting it.


The conclusion is decisive: the 5% wage increase will adversely affect the museum-going public. The evidence is certain: the museum’s revenue does not currently exceed its expenses, and the mandate will significantly increase the museum’s operating expenses, so the museum will have to either raise admission fees or decrease services. The reasoning is implicit and informal: it relies on the assumption that workers are paid at or just above minimum wage, so that the decrease cannot be combated by lower wages of those who are much above it. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer—if all of the employees are paid significantly more than

minimum wage, they won’t be affected by the mandate. b) The consistency of admission fees revenue is out of scope. c) We need to know that none of the employees are at or slightly above minimum wage. If

some are above, then the museum isn’t affected by the mandate. d) This doesn’t change the fact that revenue is still low.


Ivy Global

e) This is out of scope. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice identifies the necessary assumption. Remember, if we negate it and the argument falls apart, it’s the right choice.


Helen argues for reading books by giving an analogy: reading one is like investing money intellectually—you hope that what you learn will later afford you opportunities that you wouldn’t get not reading the book. Randi argues that this only applies to vocational books, and she also uses an analogy as evidence: reading fiction is like watching a sitcom. Answering the Question a) Randi’s response does not touch on Helen’s evidence. b) This is the correct answer—she disputes the scope (it only applies to vocational books),

and present her own analogy (watching a sitcom/reading a fiction book.) c) Randi doesn’t end up at any absurd conclusion nor does she claim that Helen does. d) Helen doesn’t give an example. e) Helen doesn’t give an example. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that accurately reflects the structure and methodology of Randi’s response to Helen.


Let’s look at the structure of this argument Conclusion: no hardware store will open in the plaza. Evidence: if a store were readying to open, it would have been publicized. There has been no publicity.

Answering the Question

a) This is a claim that the argument refutes. b) This is the correct answer. c) This is a premise on which the conclusion is based. d) This is not stated in the stimulus. e) This a premise on which the conclusion is based. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that accurately states the conclusion of the stimulus.


The ethicist’s conclusion is decisive: science has a traditional value system of its own that is not necessarily morally neutral. The evidence is certain, and given in the form of an example: scientists sometimes foresee their research as being harmful to certain groups, but their value system does not require them to not pursue this (potentially harmful) research. Ordinary morality, on the other hand, requires taking foreseeable action.


Ivy Global

Answering the Question a) This isn’t stated or necessarily true; we’re just told that scientists sometimes ignore the

foreseeable consequences of their work. b) Ordinary morality, as it’s described, only requires that consequences are taken into account,

not that we necessarily take the most ethical route. c) The conclusion is that science is not morally neutral. d) This is the correct answer. One traditional value (not taking into account consequences)

violates a principle of ordinary morality (taking into account consequences.) e) This is definitely not supported, since we’re told that scientists can foresee these

consequences sometimes. Double-Checking the Answer This answer is choice is most supported by (or most likely to be true based on) the stimulus.


The conclusion is decisive: companies that offer neither best quality nor lowest prices will go bankrupt. The evidence is certain: consumers want the highest quality at the lowest prices, and if companies do not attract consumers they will go bankrupt. The reasoning is implicit and informal: it assumes that, because costumers want the highest quality at the lowest prices, they’ll never be attracted to anything other than the highest quality or the lowest price. Answering the Question a) There’s no assumption that this is impossible anywhere in the stimulus. b) This is the correct answer. If customers could be attract to something other than these

two qualities, then the argument would fall apart. c) This is a mistaken negation of the conclusion—it negates the sufficient and necessary

conditions without reversing them. d) Brand loyalty is out of the scope of the argument. e) This isn’t assumed; the argument leaves room for other conditions that lead to bankruptcy. Double-Checking the Answer This is a necessary assumption question. If the statement is reversed, the argument falls apart: “products that are neither highest in quality nor lower in price attract customers.”

14. Analyzing the Stimulus The author of this argument makes a mistaken assumption of causation from correlation. She concludes that the reduction of the speed limit led to a decrease in serious accidents, but her only evidence is that the number of serious accidents lowered in the four years after its implementation.

- Isn’t it possible that a third factor is responsible for the reduction in accidents?

Answering the Question a) This isn’t right. If the number of speeding tickets remained the same, then it’s likely people

were still driving at a reduced speed, since the speed limit was lowered, and the same amount of people were obeying it.


Ivy Global

b) There’s no evidence that fewer police would change the number of accidents for the better. c) This is the correct answer. There were fewer cars, and that’s why there were fewer

accidents. d) Accidents that did not result in hospitalization are out of scope. e) If the scope of “serious” accidents was widened, we should see an increase in accidents, not

decrease. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies the gap in reasoning and widens it, thereby weakening the argument.


The conclusion is decisive: it is absurd to regard humans as superior to other animals. The evidence is uncertain: the human capacity to be rational is what is supposed to make them superior to other animals, but they pollute the air and water and deplete the soil that feeds them, so they are not rational. The reasoning is explicit and informal: humans are not rational, and so cannot be regarded as superior. Answering the Question a) The definition of “rationality” appears to be coherent throughout the argument. b) Humans don’t need to be aware of their irrationality to possess said quality. c) We’re already told that animals are irrational, so there’s no need to show this. d) This isn’t a presumption—the conclusion is that humans are no more rational than animals. e) This is the correct answer. The author shows us that humans are irrational in their

treatment of the environment, but that doesn’t stop them from still being rational creatures, who act irrationally in this one activity.

Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in the author’s reasoning.


We’re given a set of statements about cats that are good and bad hunters. It’s best to look at these as conditional statements:

Wild cat --MGood hunterKill prey up to half their body weight, and high muscle-to-fat ratio

Domestic cat S Good hunterKill prey up to half their body weight, and high muscle-to-fat ratio

Answering the Question a) This can’t be true—having a high muscle-to-fat ratio is a requirement for being a good

hunter. b) This isn’t necessarily true. There could be domestic cats with a high muscle-to-fat ratio who

aren’t good hunters. c) Again, this isn’t true—it’s a mistaken negation. A cat could have a high muscle-to-fat ratio;

this doesn’t make it a good hunter.


Ivy Global

d) This is the correct answer. If some domestic cats are good hunters, and a requirement of being a good hunter is a high muscle-to-fat ration, then some domestic cats have a high muscle-to-fat ratio.

e) This isn’t necessarily true—we only know those that are good hunters have both these qualities.

Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the conditional statement given.


Let’s look at the structure of this argument: Conclusion: Legal responsibility is different than moral responsibility.

Evidence: Moral responsibility for an action depends on the intentions underlying the action and not the action’s results. Example—the penalties for drunk driving are more severe when someone is injured than when no one is injured.


a) It is a premise, but it is in support of the conclusion. b) It’s an illustration of the claim that moral responsibility depends on intentions and not

results, which supports the conclusion. c) This is not a part of the argument. d) This is the correct answer. e) It’s a premise in support of the conclusion, not another premise. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that accurately explains the role of the statement.


The columnist’s conclusion is decisive: it is best not to take a strong position on an issue unless one has considered all important evidence conflicting with that position. The evidence is certain: taking a strong position makes one likely to ignore or misinterpret conflicting evidence, but understanding an issue fully requires impartial understanding of this evidence. The reasoning is implicit and informal, resting on the assumption that anyone who doesn’t understand an issue fully shouldn’t take a strong position on it. Answering the Question a) We need to connect understanding an issue fully and taking a strong position. b) We need to connect impartiality with a strong position—that’s the gap, not the avoidance of

misinterpretation (we’ve already been told that can’t exist with impartiality.) c) This is the correct answer, and fits our prephrase exactly. d) This does not connect what needs to be connected. e) Conflicting evidence is not required—an understanding of it is. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that bridges the gap in reasoning in a way that is not too broad or too narrow.


Ivy Global

19. Analyzing the Stimulus The conclusion is decisive: Jennifer’s presence in a game ensures victory. The evidence is certain: a computer has shown that when Jennifer doesn’t play, the team loses.

- What’s wrong with this? We’re told that Jennifer’s never been present during a loss. Does this mean it will happen again in the future? The author has mistaken correlation for causation.

Answering the Question a) There isn’t any conditional reasoning here, just a set of data. b) There’s no issue with computer quantification, since we’re told that this could have been

done by hand. c) There’s no generalization to sports as a whole here. d) This is the correct answer. Jennifer has been at every winning game and no losing ones,

but that doesn’t mean this pattern will continue in the future. e) There is no conclusion about the value of computer analyses. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in the author’s reasoning.


We’re given a set of statements here. Egg cartons are among the easiest of recycled Styrofoam food containers to make. Why? Well, the egg shells keep the part of the egg that is being eaten from touching the Styrofoam, so it doesn’t need to be cleaned as thoroughly. Answering the Question a) This argument leaves room for other containers that have the same quality, since egg

cartons are just “among the easiest.” b) We don’t know anything about foods that aren’t packaged in recycled Styrofoam. c) We don’t know if this is the main reason Styrofoam has to be cleaned; it’s just one of the

reasons. d) There’s no support for the argument that this is why egg cartons are made from recycled

Styrofoam. e) This is the correct answer. If every type of recycled Styrofoam container had this quality

that eggs have, then it couldn’t be the reason they are the easiest to manufacture. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given.


Let’s look at the structure of this flaw: Evidence: Adult with migraines –M Child with depression Conclusion: Child with depression—likely Adult with migraine We’ve reversed the two conditions mistakenly.


a) This is the correct answer. We can see that the structure and flaw are the same: Evidence: Good tempered dog –M Vaccinated against rabies Conclusion: Vaccinated against rabies –likely Good-tempered.


Ivy Global

b) There is no flaw in this reasoning. c) This is an absolute conclusion drawn from a “most” statement, which is unacceptable, but is

it is not the same flaw as the stimulus. d) This brings in a new argument; it doesn’t simply reverse what is already there. e) There is no flaw in this reasoning. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that matches in the stimulus in both structure and in flaw.


The conclusion is indecisive: if Professor Vallejo is correct, then glassblowing originated somewhere other than Egypt. The evidence is uncertain: if Professor Vallejo’s new publications that reopen the debate about where glassblowing originated are correct, then there is insufficient evidence that glassblowing originated in Egypt.

- What’s wrong with this? The student is assuming that not having enough evidence to prove something means that it cannot be true.

Answering the Question a) A dissenting argument isn’t a flaw. b) “If Professor Vallejo is correct...” is clearly a qualifier, and so there is no presupposition

about the truth of the professor’s statement. c) There is no suggestion that the evidence isn’t adequate. d) The majority view, in the case, is the traditional view—there isn’t a mistake about it. e) This is the correct answer. The student believes that, since Professor Vallejo has evidence

to reopen the debate, then the former view can’t be correct. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in reasoning.


Let’s look at the structure of this argument: Mattresses sold Mattresses at Mattress Madness Mattresses at Mattress Madness 20% discount Therefore, Mattress sold20% discount So, we’re looking for an argument that states AB, BC, therefore AC.

Answering the Question a) This argument has a different structure: AB, CB, therefore AC. b) This argument has a different structure: AB, AC, therefore AC. c) This is the correct answer. d) This argument has a different structure: AB, BC, therefore CD. e) This argument has a different structure: AB, AC, therefore AB. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that matches the stimulus in both structure and reasoning.


Ivy Global

24. Analyzing the Stimulus The conclusion is decisive: methane production from cows would be better kept if cows were given better-quality diets. The evidence is certain: a majority of cows, bred for meat and milk, are given low-quality diets, but would produce less methane if they received better quality diets. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. If cows on a better diet produced more milk and meat, then

not only would they produce less methane, but we would also need fewer cows, reducing the methane output even more.

b) This may be true, but the stimulus tells us that better diets produce less methane regardless.

c) This doesn’t help or hurt the argument—farmer’s intentions are out of the scope of the argument.

d) Difference between meat and milk production are out of scope if all cows are fed relatively similar quality food.

e) The conclusion is about methane production, not about reducing global warming, so the impact of methane on global warming is irrelevant.

Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that supports the argument by adding a supportive premise to the argument.


We’re given a set of statements here. Facing danger out of pleasure isn’t courage—real courage is only manifested when a person perseveres in the face of fear prompted by danger. Answering the Question a) As long as the person has some sort of fear (perhaps of the future pain), then they can be

courageous, according to the stimulus. b) This person could be called courageous, according to the statement. There’s no

qualification that the person must fear all aspects of the dangerous situation. c) As long as the person faces a fear, they are still courageous. d) This is the correct answer. In the stimulus, fear is a necessary requirement for being

courageous. e) This person could still have a different fear, and as long as they face this, they are

courageous. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given in the stimulus.


The conclusion is indecisive: if the newspaper is correct, the public will be safer from severe weather in the future. The evidence is certain: the government will replace the weather sirens if replacement parts for the old ones are too difficult to obtain. New sirens would enhance public safety during severe weather. The company that the government used to buy replacement parts from has gone out of business.


Ivy Global

The reasoning is implicit and informal: if the government can’t get replacement parts from the local business, they will not get the parts at all, and new sirens will be built. Answering the Question a) The purchase of new sirens is sufficient, not necessary for enhanced public safety. b) The author qualifies the conclusion with “if the newspaper is correct...” so this isn’t an

assumption. c) This is close to what we are looking for, but it’s not quite enough—perhaps the parts could

be easily ordered online or shipped in. d) This is the correct answer. It bridges the gap between difficult-to-find parts and the shop

closing down. e) This doesn’t bridge the gap—we don’t know anything about inferior quality parts. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies and bridges the gap in reasoning.

Section 2 Logical Reasoning · Section 2 – Logical Reasoning 1. Analyzing the Stimulus The...

Documents

Transcript of Section 2 Logical Reasoning · Section 2 – Logical Reasoning 1. Analyzing the Stimulus The...