section 2 logical reasoning - old.ivyglobal.ca · preptests 56 answers and explanations (by ivy...

Preptests 56 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

Ivy Global

Section 2 – Logical Reasoning

1. Analyzing the Stimulus The conclusion is decisive: contrary to what people seem to think, it is not more dangerous to swim at night than it is to swim during the day. The evidence is certain: swimmers usually swim during the day because they are afraid of shark attacks at night, but all recent shark attacks on swimmers have occurred during the day. The reasoning is implicit and informal: since the attacks have all occurred during the day, the day is more dangerous.

- What’s wrong with this? If everyone is swimming during the day, then of course attacks aren’t happening at night. In order to have an accurate assessment, we’d need to have the same amount of people swimming during the day and during the night.

Answering the Question a) The argument doesn’t do this. Regardless of this fact, the author’s conclusion is still that

more attacks occur during the day. b) There’s no evidence that the source is unreliable. c) This is possible, but the argument is about shark attacks, not about why people are afraid of

swimming at night. d) The argument does not presume anything about the knowledge swimmers have. e) This is the correct answer, and fits our prephrase exactly. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies the author’s flaw in reasoning.

2. Analyzing the Stimulus

Denise argues that the crime rate is only reduced when punishment is certain and severe enough to deter one from recidivism. Reshmi disagrees, arguing that crime is best reduced when educational opportunities are available to everyone—this will stop those with limited access to schooling from turning to crime as the only means to a comfortable lifestyle. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. In both cases people are able to change their minds about

whether or not they commit crime. b) Neither argues about the relative importance of crime. c) Denise talks about responses to behaviour, but Reshmi talks about a proactive approach. d) Reshmi talks about economic barriers to education, but Denise doesn’t mention economic

need. e) Denise talks about punishment, but Reshmi takes a proactive approach. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that both Denise and Reshmi talk about, and that they agree on.



Ivy Global

The conclusion is decisive: Acme gives unskilled worker the opportunity for advancement. The evidence is certain: Ms. Garon was an assembly line worker, which required no special skills, and now she is president of the company. The reasoning is implicit and informal, and rests on the assumption that, since Ms. Garon’s job required no special skills, she also had no special skills.

Answering the Question

a) This wouldn’t change the argument, since the issue is that having an unskilled job doesn’t necessarily mean that the worker is unskilled.

b) This is the correct answer. If top business graduates are put into entry-level jobs, then these aren’t unskilled workers that are being promoted.

c) If anything, this would strengthen the argument, by suggesting that there are lots of opportunities for movement in Acme.

d) This does nothing for the argument—the time Ms. Garon spent working is out of scope. e) The wages paid are also out of the scope of the argument. Double-Checking the Answer Answer choice b) is the only choice that finds the gap in the author’s reasoning (unskilled job = unskilled worker) and widens it (unskilled job =/= unskilled worker), thereby weakening the argument.


The conclusion is decisive: molting yellow warblers have no competition for food within their restricted range of flying. The evidence is certain: while yellow warblers are not necessarily deterred by a standard warbling song to signify feeding area, the special molting song stops all other yellow warblers from entering the restricted range of flying of the molting bird. The reasoning is implicit and informal: since no other yellow warblers enter the area, the molting bird has no competition at all.

- There’s a gap here. Couldn’t other animals or birds compete with the yellow warbler? The argument assumes that the only competition yellow warblers have is other yellow warblers.

Answering the Question a) Whether or not the area can sustain the warbler is out of scope. b) Whether or not other birds have the same kind of approach to molting is also out of scope. c) This is the correct answer: only yellow warblers compete with yellow warblers. d) This is heading in the right direction, but isn’t quite right. We need to know there is

absolutely no competition, since the conclusion states “no competition.” “Often” is too weak.

e) The size of the feeding territory is out of scope. Double-Checking the Answer This is an assumption necessary to the argument, and so if we negate the answer choice, it should force the argument to fall apart. In this case, “There are birds other than yellow warblers that compete with yellow warblers for food,” renders the conclusion invalid.



Ivy Global

Chinh argues that TV producers should not listen to preferences of viewers when making creative decision. As evidence, she offers an analogy: great painters don’t consider the views of museum-goers. Lana disagrees, arguing that, since TV is expressly for the viewing public, a TV producer has to be more than just an artist. They need to take consumer tastes into consideration. Answering the Question a) Lana doesn’t think that Chinh’s premise requires the conclusion and vice versa. She takes

fault with Chinh’s reasoning and analogy. b) There isn’t a sample of consumers here. c) There isn’t any claim that the effect of not considering the public’s taste is the intended

effect. d) Lana doesn’t think this is a possibility—she thinks that artists are not an accurate analogy for

TV producers. e) This is the correct answer. Artists can’t be accurately compared to TV producers. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer that identifies Chinh’s flaw in reasoning through the context of Lana’s argument.


The conclusion is indecisive: to maintain good cardiac health without having to lower sodium consumption, people should eat fresh (not canned) fruit and vegetables. The evidence is certain: fresh fruits and veggies contain potassium, which helps prevent the bad effects of sodium (which can lead to heart disease.) The reasoning is implicit and informal and rests on the assumption that canned and frozen fruits and vegetables don’t have as much potassium in them as fresh ones. Answering the Question a) We don’t know anything about the needed ratio of potassium: sodium, so this can’t be

required. b) We’re looking for potassium in these foods, not less sodium. c) The argument doesn’t suggest that potassium is the only way to prevent bad effects, just an

effective way. d) We’re comparing fresh with non-fresh fruits and veggies, so this doesn’t help us. e) This is the correct answer. The fresh ones are better, because they contain more

potassium than the canned ones. Double-Checking the Answer To double-check a necessary assumption, we can negate it. If the argument falls apart, it’s correct. In this case, “Fresh fruits and vegetables do not contain more potassium than do canned or frozen ones,” doesn’t make any sense in the context of the argument, because it claims that fresh are better.


Dana intentionally watered a plant every other day, but the plant needed dry soil, and was killed. Dana intentionally killed the plant.


Ivy Global

- It should be obvious what is wrong with this. Dana intended to water the plant, but that doesn’t mean she intended to kill it. She may have been unaware of its need for dry soil.

Answering the Question a) This is similar, but there’s no mention of Jack’s intent or motivation here, so for that reason

it doesn’t match up with our stimulus. b) The conclusion is too weak. “Celeste should know,” makes this a reasonable, and therefore

not flawed, argument. c) This is the correct answer. The restaurant owner intended to do something, and this action

caused something unrelated or unbeknownst to her to occur, so she intended for that effect to occur also.

d) This reasoning is not flawed: Heavy rainFlood is accurate drawn from Heavy rainDam breaksFlood

e) This reasoning is also accurate: Power plantDecrease in fish from Power plant Raised tempDecrease in fish

Double-Checking the Answer

The correct answer is c) because it matches the flaw, tone, and structure of the stimulus.

8. Analyzing the Stimulus The conclusion is indecisive: the boulder probably moved to be placed in this area. The evidence is certain: the area around the boulder is sedimentary and covered in glaciers that moved from the south. The boulder is volcanic. The reasoning is implied and informal: the boulder is a different type of rock, so wouldn’t have naturally occurred here. There’s a suggestion that it could have been moved by some south-moving glaciers. Answering the Question a) “Most boulders” still leaves room for the possibility that the boulder had been moved by

glaciers. b) The closest source of volcano is out of scope. c) The closest source of volcano is out of scope. d) This is the correct answer. The conclusion is that the rock moved from the north, and if

there’s no volcanic rock up there, then it would be invalid to conclude that this area is where the rock came from.

e) Nearby boulders are out of scope. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that gets at the gap in reasoning—that, because the boulder is different, it moved from elsewhere—and widens it, thereby weakening the argument.


Rifka thinks that there`s no need to stop and ask for direction since this would only happen if she and Craig were lost (and this implies that she does not believe they are lost). Craig thinks that, because they are lost, they need to stop. Answering the Question


Ivy Global

a) Craig flat-out rejects Rifka`s implicit premise (that they are not lost), and that is his reason for denying the conclusion.

b) This is the correct answer. Craig denies the implicit premise that they are not lost, arriving at the opposite conclusion of Rifka—they should stop and ask for help.

c) Craig doesn`t accept Rifka`s implicit premise, so this is out. d) There is no counter-example given. e) Craig is pretty firm that they need to stop, which is not a sign of noncommitance. Double-Checking the Answer The correct answer choice describes the method of Craig`s argument.


The critic`s conclusion is decisive: neither tragedy nor comedy can be classified as satirical literature or romance literature. The evidence is certain: major characters in satirical and romance works must have moral qualities that reflect the worlds in which they are presented, while comedy and tragedy require that the moral qualities of major characters change during the course of action The reasoning is implied and informal, suggesting that a character`s moral qualities cannot both reflect the world it lives in and change during the story. Answering the Question a) Debasing and idealizing are not the focus of this argument; they are simply used to

introduce satirical and romantic works. b) If this were true, then the conclusion would not work (because moral qualities could change,

fulfilling both the requirements of the former and latter works). We want the opposite of this.

c) Again, debasing and idealizing are just used as an introduction. d) This is the correct answer. Reflecting the world and changing are mutually exclusive. e) Minor characters are out of scope. Double-Checking the Answer This is a necessary assumption. If we negate the answer to read, “In romance literature and satirical literature, characters’ moral qualities change during the course of action,” then the conclusion is rendered invalid.


Lance tells us that if an experience teaches us nothing, then it teaches us that every general rule has an exception. Frank argues that Lance’s conclusion is, in itself, a general rule—and there would have to be an exception to it, so he’ll have to revoke it. He tries to show that Lance’s argument is incoherent and contradicts itself. Answering the Question a) Lance’s argument is not circular, it’s just incoherent. b) This is the correct answer. Lance’s argument contains a fatal contradiction. c) Frank shows the opposite—that Lance’s general rule must have an exception. d) Lance thinks experience can teach us nothing and something at the same time, so Frank

can’t really contradict this.


Ivy Global

e) Frank shows us a real case. This is wrong. Double-Checking the Answer This answer choice describes Frank’s method in responding to Lance.


The conclusion is decisive: the energy subsidy has failed to achieve its intended purpose. The evidence is certain: this subsidy has helped resident in rural areas gain access to electricity, but many of the most isolated areas still have no access to electricity. The reasoning is implicit and informal, resting on the assumption that the subsidy’s purpose was solely to provide electricity to the most isolated rural populations. Answering the Question a) What would happen without the subsidy is out of scope—we’re talking about the subsidy’s

purpose. b) The subsidy’s affect on urban populations is not what the author cites as the failure of the

subsidy. c) The argument assumes that the subsidy was meant to benefit the most rural populations,

not all populations. d) Urban populations are out of scope and do not affect the argument. e) This is the correct answer. Just because the most rural populations haven’t yet been

helped doesn’t mean that many other rural populations haven’t been helped. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer that identifies the flaw, or gap, in the author’s reasoning


We’re given a conflicting set of data. Heart attacks are most likely to occur on Mondays, likely because it is the first day of the workweek, when people feel the most stress. BUT, research now shows that even unemployed people are more likely to have heart attacks on Mondays. Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. The associations with Monday still cause more stress. b) We’re talking about unemployed retirees, not part-time employed ones. c) The evidence is about stress on Mondays, not about dietary or health habits. d) This helps explain why employed people have more heart attacks on Monday, but not why

unemployed people do. e) This is fine, but still doesn’t tell us why they occur on Mondays. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer that bridges the gap between the two conflicting premises.


The conclusion is decisive: people who are more overconfident than most are more likely to try to start a business despite the odds against them than less confident people are. The evidence is uncertain: a survey suggests that entrepreneurs are much more overconfident than business managers.


Ivy Global

- What’s wrong with this? We have a causation issue here. The psychologist is assuming that, because entrepreneurs are overconfident, their overconfidence is what caused them to become entrepreneurs. Couldn’t they have become overconfident after starting a successful business? The correct answer will bridge this gap.

Answering the Question a) The content of the questions is out of scope—we need to look at the causation issue. b) The entrepreneurs needn’t have done this. We need something that talks about the

overconfidence issue. c) This is out of scope. d) This is the correct answer. If another group showed overconfidence to be correlated with

the aspect of entrepreneurship that involves starting a business, then the argument is strengthened.

e) Business acumen is out of scope. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies the gap in reasoning and attempts to bridge it, thereby strengthening the argument.


The conclusion is decisive: the fourth-floor lab will be cleaned out. The evidence is certain: Agnes’s proposal requires the fourth-floor lab to be cleaned out, and Immanuel’s only requires continued use of the second-floor lab. The proposals need the director’s support to be approved, and the director will support both proposals. The reasoning is implicit and informal: it confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient one, and assumes that the director’s support alone (which is necessary for approval) is sufficient to determine approval. Answering the Question a) The size of the labs is out of scope. b) This is the correct answer. We don’t know that the director’s support is enough to assume

that the proposals will be approved—we just know that it is necessary. c) The level of enthusiasm the director gives is out of scope. d) This is not necessary to the argument, as the conclusion is only about Agnes’s lab. e) We’re told Agnes needs the fourth floor, and we have no reason not to believe that this isn’t

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


The conclusion is decisive: offering financial incentives for giving email addresses of friends is an unethical business practice. The evidence is certain: doing so encourages people to exploit personal relationships for profit, and doing so risks damaging the integrity of the relationships. The reasoning is implicit and formal: encouraging people to damage the integrity of personal relationships is unethical.


Ivy Global

Answering the Question a) This is a sneaky one, but it’s missing one key point. Remember, it’s unethical for the

business to encourage people to do this, not necessarily for people to do it themselves. b) We’re not talking about the usage of the information here; we’re talking about how it’s

gathered. c) The word “deliberately” eliminates this answer choice. The business isn’t necessarily

deliberately doing this, they are indirectly doing it. d) This is the correct answer. Encouraging people to do something that damages the

integrity of their relationships is unethical. e) This is stated in the argument is not what we are looking to prove. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that finds the gap in reasoning, and, stated in general terms, attempts to bridge it, thereby strengthening the argument.


Glen thinks that law’s primary role should be to create virtuous citizens, and the emphasis on procedure creates, instead, a concern with personal rights that leads to individual indifference to society’s welfare. Sara thinks, conversely, that this role would encourage governments to make the decisions about what is virtuous, which is more dangerous than being overprotective of individual rights. Answering the Question a) Neither Sara nor Glen actually talks about whether or not citizens can make good choices.

Sara simply thinks that government shouldn’t make decision for them. b) Glen thinks this is true, but Sara doesn’t actually say which is more important. c) Sara says this, but Glen doesn’t mention it. d) Glen says this, and Sara implicitly agrees with it. e) This is the correct answer. Glen thinks this is true, but Sara thinks that as primary role this

is dangerous. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer that touches on a topic that both Glen and Sara discuss, and that they have differing opinions on.


The conclusion is indecisive: it’s almost never in cardholder’s interest to skip payments for up to six months. The evidence is certain: finance charges accumulate during this time and the cost is much greater in the long run. The reasoning is implicit and formal: it’s in a person’s best interest to pay less money now than more money later. Answering the Question a) The structure of this argument doesn’t match the stimulus at all. b) We’re talking about something that has a small benefit, but is worse in the long run—not

about something that has a disadvantage but is better.


Ivy Global

c) This is the correct answer. There’s a small immediate benefit but the drawbacks are bigger in the long run.

d) The author thinks long-run costs are bad, so this isn’t right. e) This argument doesn’t match the stimulus at all. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer that matches the principle and structure of the stimulus.


Let’s diagram this out, with statements and with contrapositives. Literature ~Physics and Physics (some taking Art)~Literature Rhetoric~Physics and Physics (some taking Art)~Rhetoric Answering the Question a) This is the correct answer. Since physics students can’t take literature, and some physics

students are taking art, it follows that some art students aren’t taking literature. b) Literature students can take art—it’s just the physics-art combined students that can’t take

literature. c) There’s no connection between rhetoric and literature, so we can’t determine this. d) There’s no connection between rhetoric and literature, so we can’t determine this. e) We don’t know this for sure. We already know the physics-arts students can’t take

literature, but whether or not the rest of the art students take literature is up in the air. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given in the stimulus.


The psychologist’s conclusion is decisive: psychotherapists should never provide psychotherapy on talk shows. The evidence is certain and two-fold. Psychotherapists are expected to entertain a broad audience when giving psychotherapy on talk shows, but this satisfying this demand is incompatible with providing quality psychological help. The reasoning is implicit and informal: psychotherapists should not provide psychotherapy if they cannot provide high-quality psychological help. Answering the Question a) The disconnection comes with providing quality help, not with the entertainment value. b) This would actually weaken the argument, suggesting that quality help is not as important as

the psychologist thinks it is. c) This is a tricky answer choice, but it is too extreme and too broad. The psychologist talks

about a specific situation that isn’t on par with a sweeping statement that therapy should “never be provided” with “any chance” that it’s of lower quality.

d) What the audience is seeking is out of the scope of the psychologist’s argument. e) This is the correct answer—the therapy should be of high quality or it should not be

presented.



Ivy Global

Tania thinks that good art critics aren’t ‘fair’ in the normal sense of the word, for true unbiased opinions only come from things one is not interested in, and art is a passion. Monique thinks that art is not just a passion, and that the best art critics can passionately engage with their work, then give criticism only after shedding biases and consulting general principles. Answering the Question a) Monique thinks that art is more than a passion. Tania thinks that art is a passion, but that

doesn’t mean that she thinks it isn’t also more than a passion. b) This is the correct answer. Tania thinks that good art criticism is biased from emotion, but

Monique thinks that good art criticism can step away from passion and shed biases. c) Both Tania and Monique think that good art critics feel emotion. d) Both Tania and Monique think that there is something unfair about having biases. e) This isn’t necessarily the most important part—but both agree that it is a part. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies something that Monique and Tania both discuss and both have differing viewpoints on.


We’re presented with a strange set of facts here. First, we’re told that, since literary work doesn’t lend itself to easy interpretation, the writings of judicial decisions (which are intended as determination of law) are rarely of high literary quality. Then, we’re told that dissenting opinions in cases often include a high literary quality. Answering the Question a) The number of opinions is out of scope—we don’t know if this would have any effect on

literary quality. b) This helps explain why the decisions aren’t of literary quality, but not why the dissenting

opinions sometimes are. c) This is the correct answer. Since the dissenting opinion are determinations of the law

(and therefore don’t need to avoid misinterpretation to such a great extent,) they can have this literary quality to them.

d) This helps explain why the decisions aren’t of literary quality, but not why dissenting opinions sometimes are.

e) The number of judges reading the case is out of scope. We don’t know that this affects the literary quality of the writing.

Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that helps to describe both why judicial decisions don’t use literary voices and why dissenting opinions sometimes do.


The conclusion is decisive: squirrel monkeys will become extinct without the intervention of conservationists. The evidence is certain: squirrel monkeys can survive if second-growth forests are preserved for them, because these forests have a good supply of nourishment.


Ivy Global

The reasoning is implicit and informal: only conservationists can preserve the second-growth forests. Answering the Question a) There may very we be another habitat that supplies insects and fruits, but there also may be

other reasons that second-growth forests are necessary (perhaps the climate, foliage, etc) b) Since the conclusion is that we need intervention from conservationists, then we need to

know that conservationists are the only ones who can preserve second-growth forests, not that some will.

c) These are just needed for the flourishing of spider monkeys, not necessarily their survival. d) This is a reversal of the conclusion. e) This is the correct answer. The intervention of conservationists is required in order for

second-growth habitats to be preserved, and in turn for spider monkeys to survive. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given.


The conclusion is indecisive: there must have been many more Byzantine documents sealed with lead than lead seals. The evidence is certain: other than in rare special cases, lead seals were recast once they served their purpose to cut costs. The reasoning is implicit and informal: since the seals were recast but new documents were created, there are less seals than documents.

Answering the Question

a) This is the correct answer. If the seals were opened during this period, then the author’s reasoning stands. If they weren’t, then the idea that the seals were recast would be undermined, since we don’t know if anyone used lead seals after the Byzantine Empire.

b) It doesn’t matter if the documents were destroyed, just the seals. c) The amount of lead available is out of scope. We’re told the seals were recast not because

of the amount, but the cost. d) If there were at most 40 000 documents, then the argument is undermined, since that is the

same number as there were seals. e) The number of seals “at a given time” is out of scope—we’re talking about as a whole,

during the entire period. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that strengthens the argument by finding the gap in reasoning and attempting to bridge it.


The farmer’s conclusion is decisive: it is counter-productive in the long run to use insecticides. The evidence is certain: insects build up resistance to insecticide, so the cost of buying more and more insecticide builds. Answering the Question a) It is a premise, not a conclusion.


Ivy Global

b) This is the correct answer. It is a premise, and it used in support of the conclusion, and is explained by cause and effect (use insecticide—build resistance)

c) It is not a conclusion. d) There is only one conclusion, so it cannot support an intermediary one. e) The conclusion doesn’t explain this. This is what explains the conclusion. Double-Checking the Answer This is the only answer choice that identifies the role of the statement.

section 2 logical reasoning - old.ivyglobal.ca · preptests 56 answers and explanations (by ivy...

Documents