Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Section 2 – Logical Reasoning
1. Analyzing the Stimulus
The commentator’s conclusion is decisive: we must impose limits on freshwater usage in order
for its supply to keep up with our increasing population.
The evidence is uncertain: the current freshwater level is enough to support the world’s
population, but won’t be enough as the population continues to increase
The reasoning is implicit and informal, relying on the assumption that freshwater levels won’t
increase with the world’s population.
Answering the Question
a) There’s no mention of wasting other resources, and this is certainly not required for the
argument to flow.
b) What we need s for the freshwater levels to remain the same in the future—not a
statement about it changing in the past.
c) This is the correct answer. The author is assuming that freshwater levels won’t rise with
the population.
d) There’s no mention of synthesizing water, and while this may help the argument, it’s not a
required assumption.
e) Just as in d), this may help the argument, but it’s not required.
Double-Checking the Answer
Remember with necessary assumption questions to use the negation test. This will help weed
out any “helpers” that aren’t actually required. When we negate c) to read “The freshwater
supply will increase to meet the increased needs of humankind,” the conclusion is invalid.
2. Analyzing the Stimulus
The psychologist tells us that the best way to remember something is to stop thinking about it,
because we generally become less likely to remember something when we think too much
about it.
- The correct answer will adhere to general prephrase of this argument. How can we
phrase this argument in general terms? If we want to do something, we should
avoid thinking about that specific thing, because thinking about it lessens our
chance of coming across it.
Answering the Question
a) This answer choice tells us that we should avoid wealth and fame because some wealthy
and famous people are not happy, not because they make us less likely to become happy.
Eliminate.
b) This is similar to our prephrase, but it focuses on length instead of on the actual act of
finishing the document itself. If this were correct it would suggest instead that we avoid
thinking about finishing the document, not about how long it is until we finish it.
c) This is entirely different than our prephrase. It does not match it at all.
d) This is the correct answer. The best way to fall asleep is to avoid thinking about falling
asleep, because thinking about falling asleep lessens our chance of doing so.
e) We want to find an answer that tells us that thinking about something lessens our chance of
coming across it, not making a comparison.
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer that touches on the general structure and reasoning in the stimulus as
well as matches it with its own argument.
3. Analyzing the Stimulus
The letter writer argues that the editor’s conclusion that The Planning Department’s budgets
has increased fivefold for the same responsibility is not justified. The editor had given only one
piece of evidence: in 2001, the budget was $100 000, and now it is $524 000.
- What’s missing here? The budget definitely increased fivefold, but what about that
“same responsibility” clause? The letter writer is then hinting that perhaps the
responsibilities of The Planning Department changed with the budget increase.
Answering the Question
a) Other departments are out of scope. They don’t have any effect on the argument about The
Planning Department.
b) Overtime pay is completely irrelevant—the spending within The Planning Department
doesn’t change its given budget.
c) This doesn’t matter. Over the years the budget has still changed, regardless of when it
happened.
d) Adjusting for inflation simply gives us more accurate figures, and doesn’t change anything.
e) This is the correct answer. This shows that The Planning Department doesn’t have a
higher budget with the same responsibilities; it has a higher budget and more
responsibilities.
Double-Checking the Answer
The correct answer should strengthen the letter writer’s position, and answer choice e) is the
only answer that has any effect on the author’s reasoning. It also happens to strengthen it.
4. Analyzing the Stimulus
This is an interesting question. Instead of being given an argument, we’re given a set of facts, as
we might in a paradox or inference questions, but we’re asked to find an example that fits
within the phenomenon mentioned. It’s a type of principle question in that the answer will be a
more general version of what happened in the stimulus.
What are we told? Well, jurors are more likely to side with a judge’s opinion (picking up on
nonverbal cues) when they’re given unclear, technical instructions. They’re also more likely to
disagree with the judge when given clear, simple instructions.
- So, in more general terms, the jurors are affected by the way a judge instructs them.
Answering the Question
a) There’s no discussion of precision, just opinions.
b) There’s no discussion of how the jurors perceived the judge’s status. The influence may
have come from there, but the stimulus doesn’t state this.
c) Nonverbal communication is only mentioned really as filler, and there also isn’t any
evidence that is ineffective
d) The stimulus does not suggest that there is a difference between real and mock trials.
e) This is the correct answer, and highlights exactly what the information tells us.
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Double-Checking the Answer
This is a principle question, and so the answer tells us what happened in the stimulus in more
general terms.
5. Analyzing the Stimulus
The doctor`s conclusion is decisive: practitioners should be allowed to prescribe herbal and
nonmedicinal remedies for serious illnesses.
The evidence is uncertain: even though they don`t necessarily help, they also rarely hurt.
The reasoning is informal because it relies on the assumption that not helping equates with
rarely hurting
- For example, what if patients neglect proper and helpful treatment of their illness
because they are taking herbal treatments? If they don`t take treatment that
actually helps, then these remedies really are hurting.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer. It attacks the author`s gap in reasoning and makes it even
larger, weakening the argument.
b) The stimulus already touches on the possible ineffectiveness of these treatments, so this
doesn`t hurt.
c) This happens with any treatment, not just herbal ones, so this neither helps nor hurts.
d) The drive for profit doesn`t affect the argument—the motives are not in question, the
results are.
e) It doesn`t matter how patients find relief or if they even do. This doesn`t affect the
argument.
Double-Checking the Answer
The answer is the only choice that weakens the argument by finding the gap in reasoning (not
helping/hurting distinction) and widens it (ignoring real remedies results in hurt).
6. Analyzing the Stimulus
What happens in this argument? The author tells us that nations about to enter financial crisis
do not violate free-market principles by limiting the amount that foreign investors can
withdraw. To illustrate this, the author gives us an analogy—someone falsely shouting “fire!” in
a theatre does not violate the principles of free speech, because of the resulting stampede.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer. The result of shouting “fire!” is, in the author’s opinion, similar
to placing no restriction on the amount foreign investors can withdraw. The analogy
shows that the free market principles are not violates just as free speech is not.
b) This is a hypothetical analogy, not a set of observed facts.
c) This is a hypothetical analogy, not experimental results.
d) We aren’t working with an explanation here. Instead, we’re looking at a limitation on a set
of principles.
e) There is no empirical generalization in this question.
Double-Checking the Answer
A) is the only answer choice that describes exactly what happens in the stimulus.
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
7. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: advertising that casts political candidates in a harsh light is actually
beneficial. Why? The evidence is uncertain: the politicians that win have usually been cast in a
harsh light. The reasoning is informal and takes for granted that the harsh light is what helped
the politician. It fails to recognize that just because these politicians have won does not mean
the criticism is what helped them win.
- The correct answer will have this flaw and the same tone/strength of the stimulus
(definitive conclusion with probable evidence).
Answering the Question
a) This is valid reasoning, and doesn’t touch on the flaw in the stimulus.
b) This is the correct answer. It suggests that harsh reviews of actors (much like adverse
advertising of politicians) is beneficial because most award-winning actors have been
reviewed harshly. It has the same flaw that takes for granted that the harsh review is
what helped the actors.
c) This does not follow the reasoning pattern of the stimulus at all.
d) Again, this does not follow the reasoning pattern of the stimulus at all.
e) The conclusion in the stimulus is about what is beneficial, not about what politicians enjoy.
Double-Checking the Answer
The correct answer must have both the same flaw as the stimulus and follow the same method
of argument. B) does this.
8. Analyzing the Stimulus
In this paradox question we’re given two conflicting statements. First we find out that residents
of Springfield generally live farther from their workplaces than do resident of Rorchester (and
so, we’re told, we should expect Springfield to have greater demand for public transportation.
Then, we’re told that Springfield has only half as many bus routes as Rorchester.
- Really, this isn’t that much of a paradox. There are a variety of reasons why
Springfield could have fewer bus routes—maybe there are far more drivers, maybe
most workers travel on the same route, or maybe employers of Springfield residents
charter a bus. We’ll find that all the answer choices touch on these kinds of things,
except for the correct answer.
Answering the Question
a) This works, as it implies that most residents take the same route to work.
b) This works, because it shows that fewer people need to take public transportation.
c) This works—perhaps residents from Springfield take more trains than so residents of
Rorchester.
d) This also works to explain why Springfield has fewer routes. The routes available are more
comprehensive.
e) This is the correct answer. This would actually widen the gap, as one would expect a
larger population to have more transit options.
Double-Checking the Answer
All of the answer choices bridge the gap between the two sets of conflicting information except
for e), which actually widens it.
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
9. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive and states that N5 is of no use to people who are trying to cut calories
and fat.
The evidence is certain: when people consume N5 food, they feel hungrier after.
The reasoning is explicit and informal: since people feel hungrier after eating N5 foods, they will
eat the calories and fat that they tried to cut.
- What’s wrong with this argument? It rests on an assumption that the foods that
people eat after consuming N5 don’t have N5 or other fat substitutes in them. If
this was the case, then they wouldn’t be gaining back those calories by eating more.
Answering the Question
a) The argument makes no assumption about what kinds of or how many types of food contain
N5.
b) The argument makes no assumption about side effects.
c) The argument makes no assumption about people who don’t pay attention to caloric intake,
only those who do.
d) This is the correct answer. If people consumed more but did it by way of zero-calorie and
zero-fat foods, then they wouldn’t see a fat increase.
e) The argument makes no tangible distinction between fat and caloric intake.
Double-Checking the Answer
This question asks for what the author failed to take into consideration, which gets at the gap in
reasoning. Here the gap was the replacement foods—full of fat or N5? D) is the only choice
that explores this.
10. Analyzing the Stimulus
The music historian disputes a claim that early bebop recordings are misleading because
postwar recording studios forced artists to cut their songs short. He believes instead that the
shortened recordings make them more of an art form than long solos, and also gave live acts a
more desired compactness.
- This is a most strongly supported question, so we’ll look for the answer choice that
is most likely to be true based on the statements given.
Answering the Question
a) The stimulus does suggest that live jazz recordings are not as valued as art as shortened
ones are, but this doesn’t apply to all live recordings. It also doesn’t necessarily remove the
art form from the recording entirely.
b) This is the correct answer. The music historian discusses the benefits the postwar
constraints had on bebop musicians.
c) The historian doesn’t say anything this extreme. He thinks that these specific shorter
recordings are good, but not that all shorter recordings are better.
d) The historian makes no claims about other generations of bebop, though he does mention
the benefits of this specific generation of it.
e) These conditions did force shorter recordings, but that doesn’t mean that shorter recordings
are always the result of adverse conditions.
Double-Checking the Answer
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
B) is the only answer choice that is solidly supported by the stimulus. The rest are either out of
scope or too extreme.
11. Analyzing the Stimulus
This argument tells us that there is no causal connection between damage to chromosome 6
and schizophrenia. Why? Well, sometimes schizophrenia occurs without damage to the
chromosome, and sometimes damage occurs to the chromosome that doesn’t cause
schizophrenia.
- This tells us a few things. It tells us that schizophrenia doesn’t necessarily cause
chromosomal damage, and it also tells us that not all damage to the chromosome
causes schizophrenia. The causal arrow doesn’t flow from schizophrenia to damage,
but perhaps a certain type of damage causes schizophrenia.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer. If only a specific type of chromosomal damage causes
schizophrenia, then there would still be a causal connection even though chromosomal
damage occurs with schizophrenia. The argument neglects to consider this.
b) The argument does not presume this; it disputes it.
c) This is irrelevant—if there are people without damage or schizophrenia, it reveals causation
errors, no matter the number.
d) The argument grapples between which is cause and which is effect but does not mistake the
two, because it does not conclude that one caused the other.
e) The argument disputes causation, not correlation.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that highlights the gap in reasoning, noting exactly what the
author neglected to consider.
12. Analyzing the Stimulus
This is a tricky stimulus to pick apart. The author makes a decisive conclusion that the unusual
edifice constitutes art. He relies on uncertain evidence and informal reasoning. He states that
the purpose of art is to cause experts to debate great ideas (including what art is), and since
experts are divided on whether this edifice is art, it is art.
- What’s missing here? Fine, the piece fulfills the need to debate great ideas, but
does this make it art? Causing experts to debate is the purpose of art, not a
sufficient quality of a piece of artwork in and of itself. The author is assuming that is
something fulfills the purpose of art, then it is art.
Answering the Question
a) This is extreme is not necessary for the conclusion to be drawn.
b) This does not help to allow the conclusion to be drawn and is certainly not required by the
argument.
c) The author doesn’t state that the piece should be purchased, just that it constitutes real art.
d) This is the correct answer. It bridges the gap between “art” and something that fulfills the
purpose of art.
e) Again, the author doesn’t say that it should be purchased, just that it qualifies as art.
Double-Checking the Answer
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Once we got through the tough stimulus, the answer choices were easy to wade through. We
needed to make the connection between something that is art and something that fulfills the
purpose of art.
13. Analyzing the Stimulu
We’re given a set of conditional statements here. Let’s diagram them:
Intriguing person  inspire curiosity
Inspire curiosityexpanding mind and abilities
Expanding mind and abilitiesnot fully understood
Therefore, constant mystery (because not fully understood)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Answering the Question
This is a premise.
This is the correct answer.
This is a premise.
This is a premise.
This is a premise
Double-Checking the Answer
C) states the conclusion of the question.
14. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is indecisive: theatre managers tend to show films that are accessible to younger
audience, though not necessarily.
The evidence is certain: theatre managers only make money off films that generate a lot of
revenue
- Where’s the reasoning? There’s a huge gap between the evidence and conclusion.
Clearly, the author is assuming that films generate money when they are targeted to
younger audiences (so, presumably, younger audiences are the biggest moviegoers).
Answering the Question
a) We can’t focus just on foods—we need to look at total revenue for the argument to flow.
b) The audiences need not be mutually exclusive for the argument to flow. We just need to
see that younger audiences watch more movies.
c) It doesn’t matter whether the movies or food make more money, what’s important is how
much money comes in.
d) This is the correct answer. It is the unstated assumption.
e) This is not necessarily true nor is it required.
Double-Checking the Answer
We can double-check a necessary assumption question with the negation test. If we negate d)
to read “Theatre managers generally believe that a film that is attractive to younger audiences is
less likely to be profitable than other films,” the conclusion makes no sense, and the argument
falls apart.
15. Analyzing the Stimulus
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
In this question we’re given a set of statements about genetic research. It’s convoluted, but by
the end we’re told basically two things:
Almost all advances in genetic research involve ethical dilemmas.
Genetic research projects are funded by the government, by corporations, or by both.
- This is an inference question, so the answer to this question must be true based on
these two statements, and we have to be careful not to extrapolate any further.
Answering the Question
a) We know that genetic research is funded by the government more often than by
corporations, but that doesn’t mean that specific advances are funded more often by the
government. There’s also the possibility that they are funded by both government and
corporation.
b) We cannot add together two “most” statements to create a “most” conclusion. If 51/100
advances gave rise to ethical dilemmas, and 51/100 were funded by genetic research, then
it’s possible that only one venture funded by the government resulted in and ethical
dilemma.
c) We don’t need corporate sponsorship—it’s only necessary if there is no government
sponsorship.
d) This is the correct answer. Since ethical dilemmas in genetic advances came from genetic
research, and all genetic research ventures are funded by either government or
corporation, then government or corporate sponsorship is required for an ethical dilemma
to arise from genetic research advances.
e) The government is not necessarily causing the ethical dilemmas.
Double-Checking the Answer
D) is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given.
16. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is indecisive: sometimes a business can survive only by becoming a different
corporation (but this isn’t always true.)
The evidence is uncertain: business that are inefficient go extinct, and need to adapt—but some
cannot adapt unless they change their corporate philosophy
The reasoning is implied and informal, leaving a gap between the evidence and conclusion. The
bridge between changing a corporate philosophy and becoming a different corporation needs to
be bridged. In order for the argument to flow, they must equate.
Answering the Question
a) This is not required and not stated. Only some businesses need to do this.
b) This is not required, and “invariably” is too strong of a word for this loose argument.
c) This may be true, but it is certainly not an assumption made.
d) This contradicts what the author says when she argues that “sometimes a business cannot
adapt without changing its core corporate philosophy.”
e) This is the correct answer. It bridges the gap between changing philosophies and
becoming a different company.
Double-Checking the Answer
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
For a necessary assumption, the correct answer, when negated, will render the argument
invalid. “A business can change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different
company” does not allow for the conclusion to follow.
17. Analyzing the Stimulus
Here we are given two sets of conflicting information. Residents of L had slightly below average
living conditions yet were generally satisfied with their quality of life ten years ago. Now, they
have a more average quality of life, but are generally dissatisfied with it.
Answering the Question
a) Comparing to other areas doesn’t help. Even if L residents have a weird way of looking at
things, it doesn’t explain why they are more dissatisfied with seemingly better living
conditions.
b) This is the correct answer. L’s quality of life went up in relation to the national average,
but what if, over those ten years, the national average plummeted? Then so did L’s
quality of life.
c) The criteria don’t matter. The change in opinion is what’s important.
d) There’s no mention of why the living conditions declined, nor is it important.
e) Regardless of awareness, this doesn’t explain why the opinion dropped.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer that bridges the gap between both sets of information in a sound way.
18. Analyzing the Stimulus
The travel agent gives a decisive conclusion that passengers are safer on major airlines than on
newer low-fare ones.
Why? His evidence is uncertain. Low-fare airlines haven’t been in existence long enough to
have a reliable safety record, but major airlines have.
What’s missing from his reasoning? It’s informal and rests on an assumption that reliable
records indicate safety (when, of course, they could reliably dangerous).
Answering the Question
a) The travel agent acknowledges that this may be true, but is more focused on the records.
He thinks that, even if low-fare airlines have had half the rate of accidents as major ones,
their lack of a reliable record makes them a less safe choice.
b) This doesn’t happen. The travel agent talks about low-fare airlines’ records being over too
brief a period, but he doesn’t make this mistake himself.
c) This is the correct answer.
d) This is tempting, but he doesn’t assume that their safety leads to reliable records, just that
reliable records mean greater safety.
e) This is close to the right answer, but “one or more” is not what we’re looking for—we’re
looking for straight danger.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that gets at the flaw in the gap in reasoning.
19. Analyzing the Stimulus
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
The economist’s conclusion is indecisive: it’s not a great solution, but lowering income taxes
would help the economy.
Why? Her evidence is pretty shaky. She says that weakness in the economy is due to a
reluctance to spend among consumers, which is exacerbated by low income.
What’s wrong with this? The reasoning is implied and had a huge gap in it. She seems to
believe that lowering income taxes would make consumers less reluctant to spend, perhaps by
increasing their income. But she doesn’t state this, and it’s the assumption she requires to draw
her conclusion.
Answering the Question
a) We don’t need prices to decrease; she doesn’t cite this as a reason for decreased consumer
spending.
b) This doesn’t help—we need to connect lowered taxes with higher spending.
c) Again, we need to connect lowered taxes with higher spending.
d) This is the correct answer and bridges the gap in reasoning.
e) Government spending is out of scope.
Double-Checking the Answer
The negation test shows that a negation of the correct answer would not allow for the
conclusion to be properly drawn.
20. Analyzing the Stimulus
The stimulus gives us the result of an experiment: Type B volunteers saw a great decrease in
cholesterol levels and their lipid profiles remained unchanged while type A volunteers saw no
benefit and some shifted to type Bs. The author concludes from this that type B lipid profiles
are at a much greater risk than type As to develop heart disease.
- Does this really follow? It’s hard to know what the results of the experiment really
mean. The answer will be an inference, or something that must be true. All we
know is that type B is riskier, so there must have been a higher incidence of heart
disease risk among type B participants in the study.
Answering the Question
a) We don’t know that this happened as the study does not talk about risk, and the conclusion
only talks about an increased risk.
b) This is not necessarily true. There is nothing about high cholesterol levels being the reason
Bs have a higher risk.
c) This would make the study more valid, but is not required.
d) This is not necessarily and is really a more extreme version of answer choice b).
e) This is the correct answer. In order for the conclusion to have been drawn, at least some
volunteers would have had to have seen a higher heart disease risk.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the facts given. It’s not a lot nor is it a
big statement, but it’s necessary for the stimulus to make sense at all.
21. Analyzing the Stimulus
The columnist gives us a principle: there should be freedom of thought and expression, but that
doesn’t mean that there is nothing wrong with exploiting twisted tastes for financial gain.
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Answering the Question
a) Freedom of thought and expression allows for these depraved tastes to be vocalized, so this
is out.
b) The first part of this is right, but the second part is completely out of scope. The principle
talks about exploiting these tendencies, not about refraining from creating them.
c) This is the correct answer. People can publish whatever they want, but morally they
should not exploit the off-colour tastes of some.
d) The columnist talks about “wrong,” not about government censorship.
e) There’s nothing about someone criticizing others who demean them.
Double-Checking the Answer
This example clearly illustrates the columnist’s principle.
22. Analyzing the Stimulus
There’s a gap in reasoning here. The conclusion talks about measuring the rate at which society
is changing by measuring the amount of deference that younger members show to older ones,
while the evidence talks about how much younger members value the advice of their elders.
- So the correct answer will bridge the gap between “deference” and valuing advice
Answering the Question
a) The young members don’t need to know how society is changing; it’s likely an unconscious
shift in how they behave.
b) Practical usefulness is not important.
c) This is the correct answer—it clearly bridges deference and value
d) Although this is likely the idea that the stimulus is getting at, it’s not the assumption
required for that argument to flow.
e) This is the same as b), and is irrelevant.
Double-Checking the Answer
We can use the negation test—if deference does not equate with value, then the conclusion
does not follow and the argument is invalid.
23. Analyzing the Stimulus
The politician advocates a tariff to increase on imported fruits so that cheap international fruits
do not run domestic farmers, causing their way of life to disappear. Generally, the politician is
advocating for social issues taking precedence over economic benefits.
Answering the Question
a) This is about social over economic interests; one country over another.
b) The saving of farmlands in not for the specific benefit of on group over another.
c) This is the correct answer. Social concerns are sometimes more important than economic
ones.
d) Similar to A, this is not about one country over another.
e) This is irrelevant.
Double-Checking the Answer
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
This answer abides to the general reasoning and thought process of the politician without being
too broad or too narrow.
24. Analyzing the Stimulus
This is a short and sweet argument. During the eight years that the preserve has been closed,
the population has doubled, so if it stays closed, the valley’s bear population will increase.
- This is a subtle shift, but it pays off to read careful on the LSAT. The author shifted
from talking about the bears in the preserve to the bears in the valley. We can’t
conclude that the population of bear will increase in the valley just because they did
in the preserve. What if the bears migrated from other parts of the valley to the
preserve? The population wouldn’t have changed.
Answering the Question
a) Migrated from where? If it was inside the valley, then this might help us. But if it was
outside, this would actually strengthen the argument. We don’t know, so we can’t say.
b) This does nothing for the argument. If anything, it would strengthen it, suggesting that the
bear population as a whole did increase, and wasn’t just due to migration.
c) This does nothing for the argument. The bear population could increase through mating,
etc.
d) This is irrelevant.
e) This is the correct answer. If the number of bears in the valley has stayed the same, the
increase is likely due to bears within the valley, and so there’s no reason to think that the
population would change.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer that weakens the argument by noting the shift from “preserve” to
“valley.” The rest of the answers either do nothing, or support the author.
25. Analyzing the Stimulus
We’re given four conditional statements, and then a conclusion:
Handmade componentsMore expensive
Made-to-measureMedium to expensive
Handmade foundationHuman hair
Human hairDry-cleaned
Therefore, Made-to-measureDry-cleaned
- Once diagrammed out like this, you can see that the gap comes with made-tomeasure wigs have handmade components (or medium-expensive wigs having
handmade components). The other connections are there. This is the weak link and
should be the correct answer.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer. When we know this, the chain flows perfectly:
Made-to-measureMedium-expensiveHandmadeHuman hairDry-cleaned
b) We already know that handmade components are more expensive, so this doesn’t help.
c) This isn’t an assumption. This is true based on the connection of conditional statements
(HandmadeHuman hairDry-cleaned)
d) This is not necessarily true nor is it required. It’s the “made-to-measure” that we need to
connect.
Ivy Global
Preptests 58 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
e) This is a false contrapositive of the last statement and is definitely not required.
Double-Checking the Answers
After seeing the conditional statements written out, it should be clear that the gap comes with
connecting the statement about made-to-measure wigs with the statement about handmade
foundations being made of human hair. This is what a) does.
26. Analyzing the Stimulus
The philosopher tells us that dogs, wolves, and foxes won’t tolerate an attack on another if the
victim shows submission. He then concludes that it’s wrong for us to deny that animals are
capable of following moral codes, presumably because these dogs have demonstrated morality.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer. It refutes the premise (only humans are capable of obeying
moral rules) with a counter-example (dogs showing morality).
b) There’s no generalization about all animals, just that there are species other than human
with a sense of moral code.
c) It does refute this in a sense, but that’s not the entire structure of the argument. It misses
the counter-example.
d) There is no logical contradiction here.
e) There is no evidence suggesting that morality is applied too broadly—if anything, it’s too
narrow here.
Double-Checking the Answer
A) conforms to the structure and method that the argument takes.
Ivy Global