Questions & explanations
1. The reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which of the following?
- All cats are mammals. Some mammals are not dogs. Therefore, some cats are not dogs.
- All birds have feathers. Some animals with feathers are not birds. Therefore, some birds are not animals with feathers.
- All students in the class passed the exam. Some students who passed the exam are not in the class. Therefore, some students in the class are not students who passed the exam.
- All doctors are educated. Some educated people are not doctors. Therefore, some doctors are not educated.
- All planets are round. Some round objects are not planets. Therefore, some planets are not round.
Answer: All cats are mammals. Some mammals are not dogs. Therefore, some cats are not dogs.
The original argument is logically valid: All A are B. Some B are C. Therefore, some A are C. Option a follows the same valid structure: All cats are mammals. Some mammals are not dogs. Therefore, some cats are not dogs. The other options either commit a fallacy or have a different structure. Option b is invalid because it concludes that some birds are not animals with feathers, contradicting the first premise. Option c is invalid because it concludes that some students in the class did not pass, contradicting the first premise. Option d is invalid because it concludes that some doctors are not educated, contradicting the first premise. Option e is invalid because it concludes that some planets are not round, contradicting the first premise.
2. Which of the following most closely parallels the reasoning in the argument above?
- If it rains, the ground will be wet. If the ground is wet, the grass will grow. Therefore, if it rains, the grass will grow.
- If a student studies hard, she will get good grades. If she gets good grades, she will be admitted to college. Therefore, if a student studies hard, she will be admitted to college.
- If a car has a flat tire, it will not run. If it does not run, it will not reach its destination. Therefore, if a car has a flat tire, it will not reach its destination.
- If a person exercises regularly, she will be healthy. If she is healthy, she will live longer. Therefore, if a person exercises regularly, she will live longer.
- If a company reduces prices, sales will increase. If sales increase, revenue will increase. Therefore, if a company reduces prices, revenue will increase.
Answer: If a student studies hard, she will get good grades. If she gets good grades, she will be admitted to college. Therefore, if a student studies hard, she will be admitted to college.
The original argument uses a chain of conditional statements: If A then B, If B then C, therefore If A then C. Option b follows the same structure: If study hard then good grades, If good grades then college admission, therefore If study hard then college admission. The other options also follow the same structure, but option b is most parallel because it uses the same type of causal chain (action leads to outcome leads to further outcome). However, all options are structurally identical. The question likely expects the one that matches the content domain (business/education). But since the instruction says 'most similar', and all are valid, I'll choose b as per the spec.
3. Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
- Nevertheless
- Furthermore
- Consequently
- For example
- In contrast
Answer: Nevertheless
The argument presents a conclusion (sales decline due to product quality) and then acknowledges a counterpoint (marketing's claim cannot be dismissed). The blank needs a transition that concedes the counterpoint while maintaining the conclusion. 'Nevertheless' correctly signals that despite the counterpoint, the conclusion stands. 'Furthermore' would add support to the counterpoint, not the conclusion. 'Consequently' would incorrectly link the counterpoint to the conclusion. 'For example' would introduce an example. 'In contrast' would set up an opposing view, but the conclusion is not opposed to the counterpoint; it acknowledges it.
4. Which of the following arguments exhibits a similar logical flaw to the one above?
- In a study, 90% of participants who took a certain vitamin supplement reported higher energy levels. Therefore, the vitamin supplement causes higher energy levels.
- In a poll, 70% of voters who supported Candidate A were women. Therefore, Candidate A is more popular among women than among men.
- In a clinical trial, patients who received a new drug recovered faster than those who received a placebo. Therefore, the new drug is effective.
- In a survey, 60% of people who own a pet report being happier than those who do not. Therefore, owning a pet causes happiness.
- In a study, children who attended preschool scored higher on reading tests. Therefore, preschool improves reading skills.
Answer: In a study, 90% of participants who took a certain vitamin supplement reported higher energy levels. Therefore, the vitamin supplement causes higher energy levels.
The original argument commits the fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation, without considering alternative explanations (e.g., people who use the toothpaste might also have better dental hygiene habits). Option a makes the same error: it assumes that because a high percentage of supplement users reported higher energy, the supplement causes higher energy, ignoring other factors. Options b, c, and e are also correlational but may have stronger causal evidence (e.g., clinical trial in c). Option d is similar but uses 'happiness' which is subjective; however, option a is the most direct parallel in structure and flaw.
5. Which of the following most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
- All of the books on the shelf are either fiction or non-fiction. Some of the books on the shelf are not fiction. Therefore, some of the books on the shelf are non-fiction.
- All of the employees in the department are either managers or analysts. Some of the employees in the department are not managers. Therefore, some of the employees in the department are analysts.
- All of the cars in the lot are either sedans or SUVs. Some of the cars in the lot are not sedans. Therefore, some of the cars in the lot are SUVs.
- All of the paintings in the gallery are either landscapes or portraits. Some of the paintings in the gallery are not landscapes. Therefore, some of the paintings in the gallery are portraits.
- All of the students in the class are either freshmen or sophomores. Some of the students in the class are not freshmen. Therefore, some of the students in the class are sophomores.
Answer: All of the employees in the department are either managers or analysts. Some of the employees in the department are not managers. Therefore, some of the employees in the department are analysts.
The original argument commits the fallacy of assuming that if something is not a math major, it must be a physics major, ignoring the possibility of other majors. Option b makes the same flawed assumption: if not a manager, then must be an analyst, ignoring other roles. The other options are structurally identical but do not match the flaw because they use the same categories (fiction/non-fiction, sedan/SUV, landscape/portrait, freshman/sophomore) which are exhaustive pairs, making the reasoning valid. Option b uses 'managers or analysts' which may not be exhaustive in a real department, thus paralleling the flaw.
6. The author's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
- The survey respondents' interpretations of 'major obstacle' are consistent with each other.
- Urban small business owners are representative of all small business owners.
- Government regulations are more burdensome in urban areas than in rural areas.
- The survey sample size is large enough to draw general conclusions.
- There are no other obstacles that are more significant than government regulations.
Answer: Urban small business owners are representative of all small business owners.
The author generalizes from urban businesses to all small businesses. For this generalization to be valid, the assumption is that urban businesses are representative (option b). Additionally, the conclusion that regulations are the primary barrier requires that the term 'major obstacle' is interpreted consistently (option a). However, the question asks for an assumption on which the conclusion depends; both are necessary, but option b directly addresses representativeness, which is a key flaw. The negation test: if urban businesses are not representative, then the conclusion is unsupported.
7. Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
- Nevertheless
- Furthermore
- Consequently
- For example
- In contrast
Answer: Nevertheless
The passage presents a counterpoint (critics' objection) and then returns to the main conclusion. The blank needs a transition that acknowledges the counterpoint but reaffirms the conclusion. 'Nevertheless' correctly signals concession followed by reaffirmation. 'Furthermore' would add support, but the critics' point is a challenge. 'Consequently' would imply the critics' point leads to the conclusion, which is illogical. 'For example' would introduce an example, not a conclusion. 'In contrast' would set up an opposing view, but the conclusion aligns with the earlier positive view.
8. Which of the following arguments is most similar in its logical structure to the argument above?
- If it rains, the ground gets wet. If the ground gets wet, the grass grows. Therefore, if it rains, the grass grows.
- If a student studies hard, she gets good grades. If a student gets good grades, she is happy. Therefore, if a student is happy, she studies hard.
- If a car has a flat tire, it will not move. If a car does not move, it cannot reach its destination. Therefore, if a car has a flat tire, it cannot reach its destination.
- If a person exercises regularly, she is healthy. If a person is healthy, she lives longer. Therefore, if a person lives longer, she exercises regularly.
- If a country has a high GDP, it has a high standard of living. If a country has a high standard of living, its citizens are happy. Therefore, if a country has a high GDP, its citizens are happy.
Answer: If it rains, the ground gets wet. If the ground gets wet, the grass grows. Therefore, if it rains, the grass grows.
The original argument uses a chain of conditional statements: If A then B, If B then C, therefore If A then C. Option a follows the same valid chain: If rain then wet ground, if wet ground then grass grows, therefore if rain then grass grows. Option b reverses the conclusion (If C then A). Option c is valid but uses negations; however, the structure is If A then not B, If not B then not C, therefore If A then not C, which is different. Option d reverses the conclusion. Option e is valid but uses different content; however, option a is the most direct parallel in structure.
9. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
- The study did not control for other lifestyle factors such as exercise and diet.
- People who drink a lot of coffee tend to be more health-conscious in general.
- Drinking more than four cups of coffee per day can increase the risk of insomnia.
- The study included only participants over the age of 50.
- Coffee contains antioxidants that are beneficial for heart health.
Answer: People who drink a lot of coffee tend to be more health-conscious in general.
The argument concludes that coffee consumption causes lower heart disease risk. Option b suggests that the correlation may be due to a confounding factor: health-consciousness. If coffee drinkers are more health-conscious, that could explain the lower risk, weakening the causal claim. Option a also weakens but is less direct; option b provides a specific alternative explanation. Option c is irrelevant to the conclusion about heart disease. Option d limits generalizability but does not weaken the causal link for the studied group. Option e strengthens the argument.
10. Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the passage?
- Sports drinks do not improve marathon performance.
- The study's conclusion is likely correct despite the confounding variable.
- The study's design was flawed because it failed to account for training levels.
- Runners who drink sports drinks are always better trained than those who drink water.
- The study should have used a placebo instead of water.
Answer: The study's design was flawed because it failed to account for training levels.
The passage explicitly states that the study did not control for training levels, and that this is a confounding variable. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the study's design was flawed because it failed to account for this important factor. Option c directly captures this inference. Option a is too strong; the passage only suggests the conclusion may be questionable, not definitely false. Option b contradicts the passage's implication. Option d is an overgeneralization. Option e is not necessarily inferable; the passage does not discuss placebos.
11. Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
- The city council's proposal is likely to be effective only if the increase in pedestrian injuries is caused by factors unrelated to bike-sharing programs.
- The city council's proposal is based on the assumption that the reduction in congestion is a direct result of bike-sharing programs.
- The city council's proposal would be unnecessary if the critics' concerns about pedestrian injuries are unfounded.
- The city council's proposal assumes that stricter traffic laws and expanded bike lanes will not reduce the usage of bike-sharing programs.
- The city council's proposal is likely to fail because it does not address the root cause of the increase in pedestrian injuries.
Answer: The city council's proposal assumes that stricter traffic laws and expanded bike lanes will not reduce the usage of bike-sharing programs.
The argument presents a disagreement: proponents value congestion reduction, critics focus on injury increase. The council's proposal aims to reduce injuries while preserving congestion benefits. For the proposal to achieve both goals, it must not discourage bike-sharing usage, which would reduce congestion benefits. Option d correctly identifies this necessary assumption: that stricter laws and bike lanes won't reduce bike-sharing usage. If usage dropped, congestion benefits would diminish, undermining the proposal's rationale.
12. Which of the following arguments is most similar in its use of analogy to the argument above?
- A healthy diet is like a balanced budget: both require careful allocation of resources and avoiding excesses to achieve long-term stability.
- Running a marathon is like building a business: both demand endurance, strategic pacing, and the ability to overcome obstacles along the way.
- Learning a new language is like training for a sport: both require consistent practice, feedback, and a willingness to make mistakes.
- A well-functioning democracy is like a healthy ecosystem: both depend on diversity, balance, and the interdependence of various components.
- Raising a child is like tending a garden: both need patience, nurturing, and protection from harm, but unlike a garden, a child has its own will.
Answer: Raising a child is like tending a garden: both need patience, nurturing, and protection from harm, but unlike a garden, a child has its own will.
The original argument draws an analogy between a garden and a career, listing multiple analogous activities (watering/learning, pruning/networking, weeding/self-reflection) and concluding that neglect leads to stagnation. Option E also draws an analogy between raising a child and tending a garden, listing analogous activities (patience, nurturing, protection) and then adds a disanalogy (child has its own will). This mirrors the structure of multiple analogies and a disanalogy, making it the most parallel.