Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Section 1 – Logical Reasoning
1. Analyzing the Stimulus
We’re given the results of a study. Children were taught the word stairs while watching
someone walk up and down stairs, and then when shown a person climbing a ladder, they called
it “stairs.”
Answering the Question
a) The children could see the object denoted by the word.
b) This can’t be right, since they misattributed the ladder as stairs.
c) We don’t know anything about the stage in which a child learns words.
d) This is the correct answer and describes exactly what happened in stimulus.
e) This can’t be right, since they misattributed the ladder as stairs.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that describes what happened in the stimulus.
2. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: it is likely that people with very long lives are genetically predisposed
to having long lives.
The evidence is certain: a large proportion of people who live to be over 100 have led unhealthy
lives.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: being unhealthy probably impedes people from living
long lives.
Answering the Question
a) This doesn’t account for the people who smoke and get little exercise.
b) “Some of the people” are an exception, and not helpful.
c) “Some of the people” are an exception, and not helpful.
d) “Some of the people” are an exception, and not helpful.
e) This is the correct answer. This strengthens the correlation between a genetic
predisposition and having a long life.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that strengthens the answer choice by adding another piece of
correlative evidence.
3. Analyzing the Stimulus
We’re told that unpleasant-tasting medications are only produced as tablets, capsules, or softgel. Medication M cannot be made into tablets or soft-gel, so it will be produced as a capsule.
- This only works if medication M is unpleasant tasting. We need to fit both sufficient
conditions.
Answering the Question
a) Liquid form is out of scope.
b) This is the correct answer. Without it, the argument doesn’t make sense.
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
c) This doesn’t mean anything, since medication M can’t be produced in either of these forms.
d) The melting point evidence refers to tablets, not soft-gels.
e) There’s no comparison of taste among the three different forms.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that must be true for the conclusion to follow.
4. Analyzing the Stimulus
We’re given a strange set of facts here. First, we’re told that Morris needs to amass a majority
of shares, but that the current majority shareholder refuses to sell. Then, we’re told that it’s still
predicted that she will succeed in amassing these shares.
Answering the Question
a) Other newspapers are out of scope.
b) We don’t know that price is the reason that Azedcorp won’t sell, so this doesn’t help.
c) Other potential buyers won’t make it more or less likely for Azedcorp to sell.
d) Morris still needs at least one of Azedcorp’s share, if they hold a majority.
e) This is the correct answer. Forcing of sale overcomes the Azedcorp’s desire not to sell.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that makes sense of the facts in the stimulus.
5. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is indecisive: if lead paint is eliminated, childhood lead poisoning will be
eradicated.
The evidence is certain: childhood lead poisoning has declined since lead paint and gas were
phased out, but 25% of homes still contain lead poisoning.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: it assumes that lead paint and gasoline are the only
causes of lead poisoning.
Answering the Question
a) There’s no evidence to suggest that the statistics are unreliable.
b) The reasoning isn’t circular. Its evidence directly supports its conclusion.
c) This is the correct answer. It fits our pre-phrase exactly.
d) Economics are out of scope.
e) This doesn’t change the argument. Even if children didn’t live in the lead paint houses,
childhood lead poisoning could still be eliminated.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that accurately states the flaw in the author’s reasoning.
6. Analyzing the Stimulus
We’re given a set of statements here. Exact caffeine content isn’t listed on soft drinks, and
doing so would make it easier for people to limit, but not eliminate, caffeine intake. If people
could do this, many would, and their health would improve.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer, and it follows the logic in the stimulus.
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
b)
c)
d)
e)
People who are unable to limit their caffeine consumption are out of scope.
This answer choice confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions in the stimulus.
People who want to eliminate their caffeine intake are out of the scope of the argument.
This is the opposite of what the stimulus says.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given.
7. Analyzing the Stimulus
This argument takes a quality that is true of the whole of something (collection is expensive),
and falsely deduces that each part of it has that quality (every piece is expensive.) This isn’t
necessarily true—one expensive piece could add up to the same amount as many inexpensive
pieces.
Answering the Question
a) This is the opposite—a quality of all the parts makes the whole have that quality.
b) This is true, since “unanimously” means that each person agrees.
c) This is the correct answer. The whole has a quality (long), so the parts do too.
d) This is the opposite-- a quality of all the parts makes the whole have that quality.
e) This is the opposite-- a quality of all the parts makes the whole have that quality.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that matches the structure and flaw of the stimulus.
8. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: the claim that explorers would be unlikely to survive a trip to Mars is
exaggerated.
The evidence is certain: there is a back-up system at every stage, and fatal catastrophe is
unlikely at a given stage when there is a back-up system.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: since fatal catastrophe is unlikely in each stage of the trip,
it’s unlikely in the trip as a whole.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer, and fits our pre-phrase exactly.
b) The argument does not infer that something cannot occur—it’s based on probability.
c) The argument is based on probability, not what “must be true.”
d) The argument is based on probability, not what “will work.”
e) The argument does not reject a viewpoint, just claims that it is exaggerated.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in the author’s reasoning.
9. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: retrospective studies cannot reliably determine the causes of a
human’s present characteristics.
The evidence is certain: this type of study involves a subjective report of the patient’s past.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: the argument only follows if we assume that subjective
reports are not reliable.
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Answering the Question
a) We’re talking about the subjective reports, and there’s no indication that they are
necessarily inaccurate, just unreliable.
b) A correlation between past and present characteristics is out of scope.
c) This is the correct answer. It fills in the gap between the conclusion and evidence—that
subjective reports are unreliable.
d) We need the connection between subjectivity and unreliability.
e) Other scientific studies are out of scope.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that is required by the argument. If it is negated, the conclusion is
rendered invalid.
10. Analyzing the Stimulus
Let’s look at the structure of this argument:
Conclusion: Additional seating will likely be used to seat passengers, not for shops.
Evidence: The number of passengers flying is expected to triple in 20 years, and it will be
impossible for normal planes to accommodate this.
Answering the Question
a) This is a premise.
b) This is the correct answer.
c) This is a premise.
d) This is a premise.
e) This is not stated in the argument.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the main conclusion of the argument.
11. Analyzing the Stimulus
The scientist argues that, in a study of two medications, the only people who successfully cured
athlete’s foot were those who took medication M. The reporter takes this to means that
medication M always cures athlete’s foot.
- This is a clear error. Evidence that M is the only medication that cures athlete’s foot
doesn’t mean that it always cures it.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer. It fits our pre-phrase exactly.
b) The conclusion is only about M, not the population as a whole.
c) Those who did not participate are out of scope.
d) Other medications are out of scope.
e) This doesn’t affect or change the argument.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in the reporter’s reasoning.
12. Analyzing the Stimulus
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
The paleontologist’s conclusion is decisive: pleasiosauromorphs probably hunted over long
distances.
The evidence is certain: their fins were long and thin, like the wings of bird specialized for longdistance flight.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: this argument only makes sense if the qualities of longdistance flying birds can be extrapolated to long-distance swimming marine reptiles.
Answering the Question
a) Other physical features are not important.
b) Whether or not other marine reptiles had long, thin fins is out of scope.
c) This is out of the scope of the argument.
d) We need to focus on the characteristic, not other reptiles.
e) This is the correct answer. Bird wings and reptile fins are comparable.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that bridges the gap in reasoning. If we negate the assumption,
the conclusion falls apart.
13. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: Elaborate screensavers can cost a company more time than is saved
on electricity and monitor protection.
The evidence is certain: employees spend time playing with screensavers.
The reasoning is explicit: the costs of screensavers outweigh the benefits.
Answering the Question
a) We need to see a cost-benefit comparison.
b) This is the opposite of the reasoning in the stimulus.
c) This compares two of the same thing (time) instead of two different things.
d) This is the correct answer. It compares a cost with a different benefit.
e) Again, this compares two of the same thing (price.)
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that matches the reasoning of the stimulus.
14. Analyzing the Stimulus
The music professor argues that rap is individualistic, because rap musicians work alone, and is
non-traditional, because its learning process is informal.
The critic responds by arguing that rap appeals to tradition, by using older songs and by creating
a type of tradition, and is not necessarily individualistic, since rappers have to conform to the
public’s wishes.
Answering the Question
a) The critic focuses on both premises, not just one.
b) This is the correct answer. Two new pieces of evidence are added to refute the
professor’s claim.
c) There is no generalization.
d) There is no explanation.
e) The critic introduces new evidence, she doesn’t refute old evidence.
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that describes the critic’s method of reasoning.
15. Analyzing the Stimulus
Let’s diagram this out to better visualize it:
Evidence: True meaning understoodinsight into author’s circumstances
(No insight into author’s circumstancesTrue meaning not understood)
Conclusion: True meaning not understood
In order for this to follow, we need to know that the author did not have insight into her own
circumstances.
Answering the Question
a) There’s no relative importance here, just an absolute condition.
b) This is the correct answer, and fills the gap in a straightforward manner.
c) This is not supported by the argument.
d) The conclusion is about Smith herself, not her theory.
e) There’s no mentioned of “intended meaning” here.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that fills the gap in reasoning.
16. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: snoring can damage the snorer’s throat
The evidence is certain: patients who snore frequently were more likely to have abnormalities in
throat muscles.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: the author assumes a casual connection when only given
evidence of a correlation.
Answering the Question
a) The way the study was conducted is out of scope.
b) Why the surgery was given is out of scope.
c) This is not important or necessary to the argument.
d) The effect of the throat surgery is out of scope.
e) This is the correct answer.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that strengthens the argument by identifying the assumption, and
helping bridge the gap it creates.
17. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: one should never sacrifice health for money.
The evidence is certain: health is required for happiness.
The reasoning is implicit and formal: one should not attempt to obtain money if it conflicts with
happiness.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer, and it fills the gap in reasoning.
b) We definitely require health, so there’s no “or” here.
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
c) This is out of the scope of the argument.
d) We need to know that we’re striving for happiness, so this doesn’t help.
e) Again, we need to know that we are striving for happiness.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that, if assumed, allows the conclusion to follow.
18. Analyzing the Stimulus
Vanessa and Jo give us two conditions: first, two programmers must work at a single station,
and second, the most productive programmers must be able to work alone.
Answering the Question
a) This is consistent with both principles.
b) This is consistent with both principles.
c) This is consistent with both principles.
d) This is the correct answer. The most productive programmers must be able to work alone.
e) This is consistent with both principles.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that does not match one of the principles.
19. Analyzing the Stimulus
Let’s diagram this out:
Pet shop (most)Exotic birds (most)Tropical fish
(“Most” statements do not have a contrapositive)
Tropical fish, but not exotic birdsGerbilsNot independent
(IndependentNo gerbilsTropical fish and exotic birds, Exotic birds and no tropical
fish, or neither)
Answering the Question
a) “Not independent” does not lead to any conclusions.
b) We don’t know if this is a sufficient condition for gerbils or not.
c) This could be true, or false.
d) This is the correct answer—it’s the contrapositive of the second statement.
e) The store could sell neither.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the statements given.
20. Analyzing the Stimulus
The astronomer’s conclusion is decisive: the estimates help resolve the apparent problem of
having stars older than the universe.
The evidence is certain: stars are farther away and brighter.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: either the farther away stars or the brighter ones are
younger than the closer and duller ones.
Answering the Question
a) This is out of the scope of the argument.
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
b) This doesn’t tell us anything about the age of the stars.
c) This is the correct answer. If brighter stars are younger, then the new estimates help
resolve the discrepancy.
d) This doesn’t touch on the “age” part.
e) This is out of scope.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that helps bridge the gap in the author’s reasoning.
21. Analyzing the Stimulus
We’re given a weak conditional statement here: most large nurseries sell to commercial
raspberry growers, and only sell plants that are guaranteed to be disease-free.
Then, we’re told that Johnson received diseased plants from Wally’s Plants.
Answering the Question
a) We can’t make any deductions about a place not being a large nursery.
b) We need to know whether or not Wally’s is a large nursery to make any suggestions like
this.
c) This is incoherent.
d) We can’t make a contrapositive of a “most” statement—so this doesn’t necessarily follow.
e) This is the correct answer. It follows, and it hinges on a probability, not a definite
statement.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the answer choice that is most likely to be true based on the information given.
22. Analyzing the Stimulus
The manager’s conclusion is decisive: we should try a new marketing campaign.
The evidence is uncertain: it wouldn’t guarantee success, but it is a chance to save the product.
The reasoning is implicit and formal: the cost of the approach does not outweigh the possible
benefit.
Answering the Question
a) If anything, this just strengthens the need to try to save the product.
b) We know this is a possibility, but the manager still think it’s beneficial to go forward.
c) This is out of scope—there is a chance the campaign will succeed.
d) This is the correct answer. The costs outweigh the benefits.
e) Other products are out of scope.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that weakens the answer choice by negating the implicit
assumption.
23. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: the use of TMD on peaches has not been shown to be acceptable.
The evidence is certain: there is no evidence that TMD is safe in the doses that children usually
consume it in.
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
The reasoning is implicit and informal: the risk may be higher to some part of the population,
and so it is unacceptable.
Answering the Question
a) “Warrants caution” is too weak to justify the conclusion.
b) It’s just a small group of the population, not a majority.
c) This is the correct answer. It bridges the gap in reasoning in general terms.
d) Special obligations are out of scope.
e) Serious “harm” is out of scope.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that bridges the gap in reasoning in broad terms.
24. Analyzing the Stimulus
The commentator tells us that the goal of the new law is to protect employees from second
hand smoke. The law cannot be interpreted as ever prohibiting someone from smoking in their
home.
Answering the Question
a) We’re not sure that the law will necessarily be interpreted in the opposite way, just that it
could, if someone worked in his or her home, for instance.
b) The impact of support is out of scope.
c) We don’t know anything about life outside of the direct workplace—if it involves another
workplace then that person will be affected positively.
d) People’s beliefs are out of the scope of the argument.
e) This is the correct answer. Since domestic houseworkers work in private residences, they
can’t possibly be protected.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that cannot be true based on the information given.
25. Analyzing the Stimulus
The president’s conclusion is indecisive: if the applicant pool is to be increased, the school must
raise tuition and fees.
The evidence is certain: the shrinking of the applicant pool may be due to the low amount
charged for tuition.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: since this is a possible explanation, it must be correct.
Answering the Question
a) This is the correct answer. We’re not sure, based on the information given, if the
explanation given actually applies to the case—it’s just possible.
b) Quality of education is out of scope.
c) We need to see sufficiency, not necessity.
d) This doesn’t matter. We just need to know that this is a sufficient explanation.
e) This doesn’t matter—it’s the cost relative to other universities that is important.
Double-Checking the Answer
Ivy Global
Preptests 62 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)
This is the only answer choice that is required by the conclusion. If it is negated to read, “The
proposed explanation for the decline in applications does not apply to this case,” then the
argument falls apart.
26. Analyzing the Stimulus
The conclusion is decisive: water should not be supplied by private companies to areas where it
is unavailable.
The evidence is certain: clean water is a necessity and private companies operate for-profit.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: companies whose purposes are producing profit (and not
promoting health) should not provide essential health services.
Answering the Question
a) Government agency support is not mentioned in the argument.
b) We don’t know that private companies are unwilling or unable to help.
c) There’s no evidence that private companies can’t supply safe water.
d) Things that do promote human health are out of the scope of the argument.
e) This is the correct answer. It connects the gap in the reasoning.
Double-Checking the Answer
This is the only answer choice that connects the evidence and conclusion in broad terms.
Ivy Global