Section 3 Logical Reasoning - Ivy Global · Preptests 59 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)...

Preptests 59 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

Ivy Global

Section 3 – Logical Reasoning

1. Analyzing the Stimulus This question gives us two conflicting sets of evidence. First, we’re told that investment in life-extending and pain-reducing technology is economically risky due to their low probability of financial return. Then, we’re told that some people are still willing to invest in these new technologies.

- So why would people want to invest in something so risky? The answer choice should tell us this.

Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. It tells us that this kind of technology may have a high risk, but

also has a high reward, and so it’s attractive to a certain type of high-risk investor. b) The number of new technologies means nothing; what we’re really interested in is the risk

that comes with these investments. c) This just tells us about technologies other than the ones we’re interested in and so is

unhelpful. d) This does not help the argument. It tells us about investments that seem likely to provide

large returns, but says nothing about those that aren’t likely to (and these are the ones we’re interested in.)

e) This doesn’t help us either. If anything, it makes the paradox even more confusing by suggesting that there’s one less reason to invest in these technologies.

Double-Checking the Answer Answer choice a) addresses both of the conflicting statements given in the stimulus and rectifies them. We’re told that the technology is high-risk and is unlikely to provide financial returns, yet people are still interested in investing in it. A) suggests that it’s the high reward that draws the big investors in for this technology.

2. Analyzing the Stimulus

This stimulus gives us a set of statements and not much by way of a conclusion. Let’s look at the three things we’re told:

The psychology department has received a big donation from a textbook company after they agreed to use said company’s textbook for a large course.

The department chair confirmed that the department would not have received the donation had they not used the textbook.

She said that the book was chosen only for academic reasons (and not monetary), and as evidence of this she says that the psychology textbook committee gave it the highest rank.

- Is anything missing here? The textbook committee argument is compelling, but it’s also internal—they’re a part of the psychology department. Who’s to say they didn’t rate it highly because of the impending donation? If we find something that suggests that the textbook committee knew about the donation, it would be a great weakener.

Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. It fits our prephrase exactly.


Ivy Global

b) This doesn’t help or hurt the chair’s position. It doesn’t touch on the donation. c) This also doesn’t do anything to the chair’s position. She may have used the company’s text

every year except last year, and just switched back. d) This is also does nothing if the committee had ranked the book before they knew about the

donation. e) This would actually strengthen the chair’s position by suggesting that the committee

wouldn’t really have reason to think there would be a donation. Double-Checking the Answer This answer choice weakens by finding the assumption in the chair’s reasoning (that the textbook committee would not be influenced by the company) and attacking it, widening the gap.


This stimulus gives us a set of information about haemoglobin. It tells us that a haemoglobin molecule becomes more effective at picking up oxygen molecules with each oxygen molecule it picks up, to a maximum of four oxygen molecules. We’re told in a little more detail that this happens because the grabbing of an oxygen molecule changes a haemoglobin molecule’s shape, allowing it to open up to more oxygen. Answering the Question a) This is not necessarily true. Just because a haemoglobin molecule becomes more effective

at picking up oxygen with each molecule doesn’t mean that it will probably pick up its final molecule. It gets better at doing it, but that doesn’t mean it is going to do it.

b) Nothing in the stimulus states that an open shape is the “only” factor. c) This is the correct answer as is basically summarizes the argument—a molecule with more

oxygen is better at picking up oxygen than one with less. d) This is not supported by the argument. The stimulus clearly states that the shape changes. e) We know nothing about transportation of oxygen molecules

Double-Checking the Answer Answer choice c) does not contradict anything in the stimulus, and is inside the scope of the statements given. It is therefore the correct answer.


We’re presented with two conflicting sets of facts: On short trips a driver is more likely to have an accident when there is a passenger, because they distract drivers. On long trips a driver is more likely to have an accident if they are alone. Answering the Question a) It doesn’t make a difference how often people drive alone- the stimulus states simply that

having a passenger increases the risk on short trips. b) Nothing says that long trips have fewer accidents, just that long trips with passengers have

fewer accidents. c) This is the correct answer. On long trips drivers tend to lose attention, and passengers

help them keep on track. d) Additional passengers are extraneous information.


Ivy Global

e) The number of trips taken is out of scope. Double-Checking the Answer This answer choice is a little different than normal paradox answers, because it doesn’t seem to touch on the short-trip premise. On second examination, however, it both explains why passengers make long trips safer (they keep the driver awake) and short trips more dangerous (the same quality also distracts drivers).


The challenger argues that the current mayor has not actually increased jobs for voters as promised. As evidence she states that 8% cited increase merely reflects the mayor opening up jobs in a new office and filling them with out-of-towners, giving no new jobs to residents. The mayor responds by stating that voters want jobs and she brought more jobs.

- The mayor’s response is clearly flawed here. She doesn’t even address the challenger’s main point, that the increase didn’t actually help residents.

Answering the Question a) This is unimportant to the argument and doesn’t identify the flaw in the mayor’s reasoning. b) We don’t need to know what the number of unemployed persons is. This isn’t the issue. c) This is the correct answer. The mayor doesn’t address the challenger’s main objection. d) The challenger never argues for an increased size or different priorities of the voting public. e) The mayor does not do this. She only mentions the opponent’s belief in the 8% increase,

which is not disputed. Double-checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies the flaw in the mayor’s answer.


The conclusion is decisive: the editorial is unfair. Why? The evidence is certain—it criticizes psychologists for not establishing the order that brain areas are activated during certain activities, but neglects to consider the fact that there is no technology to identify this. The reasoning here is implied: if there’s no technology to do something, it’s unfair to criticize someone for not doing it.

- For a principle/parallel question we’ll want to prephrase in general terms. If there’s no available way to determine something, it’s unfair to criticize someone for not attempting to determine it

Answering the Question a) The principle doesn’t match up here. This choice says that it’s unfair to criticize someone for

doing something in a certain way when that way is actually the most efficient. b) This is the correct answer. It’s unfair to criticize utility companies for not using nuclear

fusion, because the technology to do so is not available. c) There’s a disconnect in the reasoning here that doesn’t make sense—the introduction of

cost in the conclusion doesn’t match up. d) This choice doesn’t talk about the inability to add computer studies, just sacrifice. Eliminate. e) Irrelevancy is not the same as lack of technology, and so this doesn’t parallel the stimulus. Double-Checking the Answer


Ivy Global

B) and the stimulus are both valid, and both follow the same principle. They have the same tone and degree in reasoning.


The conclusion is decisive but qualified: a majority of people find it very difficult to rid themselves of their bad habits even though they know what they are and want to do away with them. The evidence is certain: stopping habitual behaviour lacks short-term gain, and the long-term benefit is too remote to visualize fully. The reasoning is implied: people can’t imagine their long-term benefits and so struggle to cease doing something that would only bring long-term gains. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. The stimulus implies that a vivid imagination of the future

benefit would help one cure a bad habit. b) There’s nothing about imagining present pain in the future, only feeling present pain vividly

and imagining the future dimly. c) There is nothing about past ability to kick habits coming in handy. d) This is completely out of scope. Nothing is mentioned about unawareness being helpful. e) The past is out of scope. The stimulus only mentions the present and the future.

Double-Checking the Answer Relative to the other answer choices, a) is the most supported. It’s the only one that touches properly on one of the two conditions for breaking bad habits—imagining the future.


The conclusion is uncertain: Mayan people in general seem to have had a strong grasp on mathematical concepts. The evidence is certain: writings from Mayan religious scribes show a high degree of mathematical competence.

- What’s missing? How we know that Mayan religious scribes are representative of Mayans as a whole?

Answering the Question a) “Intellectual achievements” is not the focus of this stimulus—it’s just used in the filler

sentence. b) This is the correct answer. Mayan religious scribes are likely to be unrepresentative of

Mayans as a whole. c) We don’t need to talk about other civilizations, nor is there any mention of Mayans being

more developed than other civilizations. d) “Scientific” is not equivocated in this question. e) There is no correlation here to be implied causation. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that touches on the flaw in reasoning.



Ivy Global

The conclusion is indecisive: creativity should not be considered a proper goal of an employee training program (but, it could be.) The evidence is uncertain: many jobs require little to no creativity, and in fact, creativity may be detrimental. There is also no evidence that creativity can be taught. Answering the Question a) This is a part of one of the premises. b) This is one of the premises. c) This is a part of one of the premises. d) This is the correct answer. It is the conclusion. e) This is not stated in the stimulus.

Double-Checking the Answer The sentence that reads, “There is no good reason to suppose that promoting creativity is a proper goal of an employee training program” is the main conclusion. If we take away all the other sentences in the stimulus, this one still describes exactly what the author is arguing.


The producer’s conclusion is decisive: the public boycotting of advertisers of shows that promote violence and antisocial values is censorship, just as censoring TV shows is. His evidence is uncertain: boycotting advertising may lead to cancellation of advertisement, forcing the shows off the air. The reasoning is implied and informal because it rests on the assumption that forcing shows off the air is a form of censorship. Answering the Question a) This is not stated in the stimulus and is not necessarily true. The stimulus does nothing to

restrict other cause of censorship. b) This is not necessarily true based on the premises. c) “Audience” is not mentioned—even if there were no viewers, the idea is that the restriction

is still there, because the option to watch the show is limited. d) This is not necessarily true. e) This is the correct answer. It defines the loose and undefined term “censorship” as used

in the stimulus.

Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer that fills in the gap in reasoning. If it is negated to read “No action that leads to a restriction of what the public can view is censorship,” then the argument falls apart.


The conclusion is decisive: the prediction that printed books will be replaced by electronic ones is exaggerated. The evidence is uncertain: research libraries might choose the convenience of electronic books but bookstores will choose the format that the public wants, which will be something other than electronic books.

- What’s wrong with this? Are there any other factors that could affect what stores stock? What if printed books become obsolete? The answer choice will bridge this gap.


Ivy Global

Answering the Question a) If anything, this weakens by giving us another group of people who will buy electronic books

over printed ones. b) This is the correct answer. If this is true, then we know that printed books will continue to

be produced. c) We need to add more people reading printed books, not electronic books. d) Books on tape and video are out of scope. e) “Some” is not enough to imply majority, so this neither helps nor hurts. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer that strengthens the author’s argument by bridging the gap in reasoning.


The conclusion of the argument is indecisive: a decrease in humidity can make people ill. The evidence is uncertain and rests on percentages: after an 18% decrease in humidity by the air conditioning system, there was a 25% increase in visits to the school nurse The reasoning is implied and informal, resting on the assumption that students who visit the school nurse are ill. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. If the students were visiting the school nurse for some other

reason (maybe they needed to see her for an assignment, or a Band-aid) then we can’t make the connection that decrease in humidity—increase in students to nurse—more students ill is warranted.

b) We don’t need to assume that most of the students in the school suffered, just that some of them became ill.

c) The timing is not at issue, nor do we need to show that the students suffered particularly from a virus (it could have been an infection or general malaise.)

d) We don’t need to assume the exact numbers presented, just need to show a correlation. e) The cost and efficiency of the air conditioner are not issue. Double-Checking the Answer For a necessary assumption question, we can negate the answer choice. If the stimulus falls apart, we have the right answer. If a) now reads “None of the visits to the school nurse were due to illness,” then we can’t conclude that the increase in visits meant more students were ill.


The stimulus provides us with evidence that a higher percentage of people driving small cars were injured in accidents than of people driving large cars. The author then concludes that we’re less likely to be injured in an accident if driving a large car than a small car.

- What’s wrong with this? We’re comparing proportions here. A smaller percentage injured in large car accidents does not necessarily mean a smaller number. If there were 9999 large car accidents and 10% were injured, we have 999 injuries. And if there was only 1 small car accident, and 100% were injured, we have only 1 small car injury. With this as the case, you can see there are simply far more large car injuries than small—so the number of base car accidents is necessary to draw the conclusion. The answer choice will widen this gap.


Ivy Global

Answering the Question a) Speed limits are extraneous information and do nothing for the argument. b) It doesn’t matter if people drive both, because the information given is about what they

were driving at the time of the accident. c) Medium-sized cars are out of scope and do not change anything. d) This is the correct answer. We weakened by showing, just as the explanation above, there

were more large car accidents, and so more of a likelihood to be injured. e) This doesn’t change anything. No matter how small the group, we are still working only

with those who are injured. Double-Checking the Answer This answer choice works with the weakness in the percentages. Remember that with number/percentages questions, we can’t know anything about strict numbers if we’re only given percentages. D) adds in numbers that render the conclusion invalid.


The economist tells us that a trade deficit can indicate a weakness in a country’s economy but does not intrinsically weaken that economy. He then gives us an analogy: restricting imports to reduce trade deficit is like putting a thermometer in cold water to reduce someone’s temperature. The thermometer is just an indicator and it itself doesn’t change the temperature. Answering the Question a) There’s no mention of an assumption here. The economist disagrees with a method, not an

assumption. b) He doesn’t think his analogy is faulty—he uses it to illustrate his argument. c) This is the correct answer. His thermometer analogy shows the futility of bringing down

trade deficit. d) He does not question authority in his argument. e) He definitely dislikes a certain course of action, but he just thinks that it will do nothing, not

that it will have “disastrous consequences.” Double-Checking the Answer C) is the only answer that describes the method that the economist takes.


For a parallel question, we need to make the stimulus more general, so it can be held against the answer choices. This author argues that, since it is sometimes not immoral to do one thing, and sometimes not immoral to do another, then it is also sometimes not immoral to do both these things simultaneously.

- What’s wrong with this? It doesn’t necessarily follow. We have the word “sometimes” here, which just means “at least once.” So if there’s one time when it’s not immoral to ask for money or to make threats and 99 times when it is ...then the likelihood that they’ll overlap is not necessary or probable.

Answering the Question


Ivy Global

a) This question choice is close, but its conclusion is not strong enough. It says that casual dress is “not likely” to be appropriate, while the stimulus is definite (“there are circumstances”). This is attractive, but can eliminated on this basis.

b) This doesn’t have enough groups. It’s a simple if-then conditional construction and it doesn’t work with the subgroups we had in the stimulus.

c) This is the correct answer. Both A and B are healthful, so taking A and B together is healthful. Clearly this is flawed (what if they have medications that don’t get along?) and it’s the same flaw that we saw in the stimulus.

d) This doesn’t contain subgroups in the same way to stimulus does. It’s more of an if-then conditional statement.

e) The conclusion of this is an if-then statement, and our conclusion is an assertion. Eliminate. Double-Checking the Answer The reasoning in both the stimulus and c) are both invalid for the same reason—they assume that two conditions overlap each other. They also both have the same strength and tone in reasoning.


The author’s conclusion is decisive: once we can restore cathepsin C to normal levels, we will eliminate periodontitis forever. The evidence is uncertain: lower levels of cathepsin C reduce a person’s ability to ward off periodontitis. The reasoning is implied and informal because it rests on the unstated assumption that low levels of cathepsin C are only caused by genetic mutation (i.e. disease couldn’t also be a factor). Answering the Question a) The assumption has to do with bringing back levels of cathepsin C, not connecting cathepsin

C with periodontitis. b) This is the correct answer. It is the exact assumption we prephrased. c) The assumption isn’t that this will happen—it’s that the researchers would help restore C

levels because there’s nothing else that reduces C. d) Again, the assumption has to do with repairing the genetic mutation. e) This is the conclusion that is stated, not an unstated assumption. Double-Checking the Answer If we negate the answer choice, the conclusion should be rendered invalid in a necessary assumption question. If we add in “Genetic mutation is not the only cause of lowered levels of cathepsin C,” then the argument falls apart. Periodontitis wouldn’t be eliminated, because people would still be suffering from lower levels of cathepsin C from sources other than genetic mutation.


The stimulus provides us with two sets of conflicting information. First, we’re told that the vast majority of movie plots are just variations of other plotlines, used many times over. Then we’re told that people still enjoy seeing multiple new movies every year.

- Each of the answer choices will bridge these two statements except for one. That will be the correct answer.


Ivy Global

Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. Financial success is not a part of the criteria and so is

extraneous information. It doesn’t connect the two sets of information. b) This answer choice tells us that the standard plot can be masked by sufficiently different

details of the stories. It works. c) This one tells us that while there may be standard repeated plots, there are a lot of standard

repeated plots, so people don’t see the same one all that often. It works. d) This answer choice tells us that people actually like seeing the repeated plotline, so it works. e) This tells us that the standard plots were used so long ago that people likely don’t

remember them—it works. Double-Checking the Answer A) is the only answer choice that doesn’t connect the repeated plots with popularity—it talks

about financial success instead.

18. Analyzing the Stimulus The conclusion is decisive. It says that the belief that governments should not continue to devote resources to space exploration is wrong. Why? The evidence is certain: even though our daily lives are generally unaffected by the direct consequences space exploration, it has the unintended consequence of impacting many modern technologies. The reasoning is explicit and stated: we might have missed out on these benefits without space exploration.

- For a principle question we need to state this in general terms—governments should continue to support endeavours that have produced unintended beneficial consequences.

Answering the Question a) Though this is said about space exploration, it is not the given reason for supporting the

project. It’s a downfall of space exploration. b) This is extreme. Words like “never” are rarely the correct answer in a principle question.

We’re also not speaking about any ambitious technological projects, just about ones with proven and unintended benefits.

c) There’s no mention of a correlation between practicality and unexpected consequences. d) This is the correct answer. It is almost exactly what we prephrased. e) Again, we don’t want to talk about “ambitious technological undertakings” as a whole. This

is too broad. Double-Checking the Answer Answer choice d) is the only answer that speaks to the main idea of the stimulus without being too broad, too narrow, or too out of scope.


This is a tricky question. The author starts by giving us a conditional statement: if understanding a word requires knowing its definition, then understanding it requires knowing all the words in its dictionary definition. We’re then told that babies don’t know the dictionary definition of some words they say.


Ivy Global

- What does this mean? Well, it doesn’t tell us much. If babies understand their words, then the whole argument falls apart—babies don’t require knowledge of a definition to understand a word, so the necessary conditions (needing to know many words) doesn’t follow. If babies don’t understand their words, then we don’t know anything.

Answering the Question a) This answer is tempting if you didn’t take the time to hash out what was said in the

stimulus. Remember, though, that knowing the definition isn’t necessary for understanding a word, the stimulus just talks about a hypothetical when it’s necessary. So this doesn’t follow.

b) Remember, again, that the necessary part of the condition is “understanding a word requires understanding the words in the definition” and not “knowing its definition.” It’s easy to get tripped up in this, but that’s not what the stimulus is saying.

c) This might be true, but we’re never told that babies understand what they’re saying. d) This is a false contrapositive. It negates the sufficient condition (needing to know the

definition) and then follows that the negation of the necessary condition (understanding other words) is true.

e) This is the correct answer. It hinges on what we analyzed earlier—if babies understand their words, the logic falls apart.

Double-Checking the Answer This is an inference question—it uses proper formal logic to reach an answer that doesn’t contradict any of the premises. All the other answer choices either contradict a premise or cannot be properly deduced from the statements given.


The conclusion is decisive: the darkest peppered moths were the least likely to be killed by predators. The evidence is uncertain: the peppered moths with the lightest pigmentation contrasted to most with their background and so were the most likely to be seen by predators. The reasoning is implied and rests on the assumption that the darkest colours blended in the most just because the lightest ones blended in the least. What if there was another pattern or shade that provided better camouflage? Answering the Question a) This is not a flaw. It’s not important to the reasoning if the light ones had more predators,

because this could have been due to their inability to camouflage. b) The argument never assumes that moths can control their ability to blend in. c) This is not assumed in the argument. The argument just assumes that darker > lighter. d) This is the correct answer. There have to be intermediate colours, and the author doesn’t

consider them in her analysis. e) The author flat-out states that blending in is the only defense mechanism available. Double-Checking the Answer D) is the only choices that touches on the flaw in reasoning, or the assumption that just because light colours blend in the least, darkest ones with blend in the most.


Ivy Global

21. Analyzing the Stimulus The historian argues that the QWERTY keyboard was developed to intentionally limit typing speed, so that typewriters wouldn’t jam. She argues that different arrangements of keys could double typing speed, but the expense and inconvenience of switching to another configuration bars it from ever happening. Answering the Question a) This is an attractive answer. The word “most” should throw us off of it though because

that’s not supported in the stimulus. The historian just tells us that people can type at much faster speeds. If we saw the word “some” instead of “most,” however, this might be a much more tempting choice...

b) We have been given no information about newer typewriters jamming less frequently. c) This is not necessarily true and is not supported in the stimulus. d) The benefits to “society” have not really been explored enough for this to be right. We’ve

only mentioned a couple individual benefits. e) This is the correct answer. The reason we have QWERTY keyboards was to slow down

typing speed, and computers don’t require this. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given.


Let`s diagram this out so we can see where the problem lies: 1. Make an agreement to do action Obligation to action 2. Obligation to perform actionAgreed to action 3. Legal obligation Agreed to action

What went wrong here? 2 does not follow logically from 1, it’s a mistaken reversal. The answer choice should touch on this. Further, the argument also assumes that a legal obligation is an obligation to perform an action. Answering the Question a) This bit about “good consequences” is entirely out of scope. Let’s move on. b) The argument doesn’t touch on obligations “out than those resulting from agreements

made,” so we can eliminate this. c) The premise is not equal to the conclusion—the conclusion is a mistaken reversal of the

premise. d) This is the correct answer. It hits both of the flaws we’ve identified. e) This is not even close. Willingness to perform actions and the definition of “action” are not

in question. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that hits both of the flaws in the reasoning.


This argument, in general terms, gives a definition of something (in this case, how to predict that a device will be invented), and then shows us that this can never happen because the definition is contradictory.


Ivy Global

Answering the Question a) There is no counter-example in this stimulus. b) This is the correct answer. The use of definition is what makes it right. c) This is close. The countering of the hypothesis is there, but there’s no mention of the

implications of it. d) This just does not happen in the stimulus. e) This is wrong. The argument doesn’t say that predicting an event implies it’s already

happened, but that predicting an event is impossible. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that conforms to the structure and method of the argument presented.


The conclusion is decisive: there can be no complete theory of aesthetics. The evidence is uncertain: there was a fairly complete understanding of art, but the rebellious artists of the 1960s don’t fit in this understanding.

- Couldn’t there be another theory that encompasses everything? Why does this one theory eliminate all other theories? The author is assuming that the early aesthetic theory was the most complete theory available.

Answering the Question a) The argument doesn’t make any assumption about which type of art is more beautiful or

more important. b) The argument doesn’t make any assumption regarding the motivations of the artists. c) There is nothing mentioned about art in other parts of the world—the theory is still

incomplete. d) The argument uses the 1960s as an example, but if there were more “strange” time periods

this would only help the argument along. So this can’t be true e) This is the correct answer. It assumes that you can’t be more complete than European

theory, and since that doesn’t cover the 1960s, we don’t have any theory that is complete. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that touches on the faulty assumption in the question.


The conclusion is indecisive: any biases will be removed from scientific publication. The evidence is uncertain: serious science papers are reviewed by many other scientists, so any biases in the material will be noted and eliminated by others The reasoning is implied and informal because it hinges on the assumption that other scientists won’t have the same biases. Answering the Question a) This is tricky. It’s seems like a sufficient assumption that allows the conclusion to flow. But

we are looking for a necessary assumption. If you got down to this and b), note that using the negation test will eliminate this answer choice. “The scientists reviewing serious scientific papers for publication always have biases likely to slant their interpretation of the


Ivy Global

data in those papers” does NOT make the argument fall apart, because as long as they have different biases, they can notice a bias in the paper.

b) This is the correct answer. It must be true, because if scientists all had the same biases then they’d never pick out each others’ from publication.

c) The author makes an assumption about which biases scientists have, not about the effect of these biases.

d) This may be true, but the author doesn’t argue this, and so it’s not a necessary assumption. e) This is true, although not to this extent—the stimulus states that “reviewers are likely to

notice and object to biases that they do not share.” It’s stated (so not an assumption), and it’s also a little more extreme than the wording in the stimulus.

Double-Checking the Answer We can use the negation check to double check this answer. If we insert “Biases that slant interpretations of data in serious scientific papers being reviewed for publication are shared among all scientists,” then the review of papers would never remove bias, because we know that scientists will notice bias when they don’t share the view of the author.

Section 3 Logical Reasoning - Ivy Global · Preptests 59 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)...

Documents

Transcript of Section 3 Logical Reasoning - Ivy Global · Preptests 59 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)...