Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

Section 1 – Logical Reasoning

1. Analyzing the Stimulus

This stimulus seems to be leading to a reason why aphids are okay for potato plants—and the
qualification “many species of aphid are harmful to potato plants” is what we should be picking
up on here.

Answering the Question

a) This doesn’t touch on aphids at all.
b) This doesn’t talk about the damage to potato plants.
c) This is the correct answer—it specifies that these types of aphids don’t harm potato
plants.
d) This doesn’t touch on aphids.
e) Other edible food plants are out of scope.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that logically concludes the stimulus and remains in the scope of
the argument.

2. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: Jocko was using silence as a strategy to stop other chimps from eating
his food.
The evidence is certain: Jocko uttered food barks when given a bunch of bananas, which other
chimps then came and ate. The next day, when given a single banana, Jocko was silent.
The reasoning is implicit and informal, failing to take into consideration that Jocko was given a
significantly different number of bananas in each trial.

Answering the Question

a) “Favourite” foods are out of scope.
b) This is the correct answer—the number of bananas was the reason for Jocko’s bark or lack
thereof.
c) Dominance is not supported by the argument.
d) This doesn’t fit with what happened in the second instance, when Jocko remained silent.
e) This doesn’t affect the argument one way or another.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that identifies the gap in reasoning and weakens it.

3. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: current publishing trends are based on false assumptions about
public interests.
The evidence is certain: a survey of journalism students suggested that they would prefer to see
stories about government and politics instead of lifestyle and celebrity gossip.
The reasoning is implicit and informal, resting on the assumption that journalism students are
representative of the general public.

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

Answering the Question

a) There is no causal reasoning in this stimulus.
b) There is no causal reasoning in this stimulus.
c) This is the correct answer.
d) The language is straightforward and is not subjective.
e) No hypothesis is given.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in the author’s reasoning.

4. Analyzing the Stimulus

We’re given a strange set of facts here. First, we’re told that bug zappers are effective at
removing flying insects. Then, we’re told that most pest experts recommend insect-eating birds
or insecticides instead.

Answering the Question

a) This doesn’t touch on bug zappers.
b) This doesn’t help to explain why they shouldn’t be used.
c) Light is out of scope.
d) This is the correct answer. The beneficial insects are being killed with zappers, but not
with other pest control items.
e) This doesn’t talk about bug zappers.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that helps resolve the confusion between the two statements in
the stimulus.

5. Analyzing the Stimulus

The gardener’s conclusion is decisive: rocks placed in Japanese gardens should vary in
appearance.
The evidence is certain: Japanese gardens aim to display harmony with nature, and rocks found
in nature vary widely in appearance.
The reasoning is implicit and informal, and rests on the assumption that imitating nature helps
to achieve a goal of harmony with nature.

Answering the Question

a) This is too strong. We only talk about one “key value” of Japanese gardens, which is
displaying harmony with nature.
b) This is the correct answer, and it connects the gap between the evidence and the
conclusion.
c) This is a criterion we’re given, but is not necessarily the only criterion.
d) This is out of scope—there’s no need to “be natural.”
e) This is too broad. We only speak about one component of Japanese gardens here.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that connects the evidence with the conclusion, allowing the
argument to follow coherently.

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

6. Analyzing the Stimulus

Let’s look at the structure of these statements:
If resistance > superconductor is preferablecomparable to superconductor in ALL
respects.
(If not comparable to superconductor in ALL respectsResistance>superconductor is
not preferable.)
Currently, capacity is not comparable to superconductors.

Answering the Question

a) This is the correct answer, and follows directly from the information given.
b) We need to know about ALL the components of the superconductor here, not just the
capacity.
c) This is sufficient, but not necessary, as the word “only” implies.
d) We don’t know about applications other than digital circuits.
e) We don’t know if there are other advantages or not.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that follows from the information given.

7. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: the cause of the Athens epidemic is easy to identify.
The evidence is certain: many victims experience hiccups which are only known to be caused by
Ebola. Other symptoms of Ebola were also experienced.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: it assumes that there is no other disease that has similar
symptoms to Ebola that has not yet been discovered.

Answering the Question

a) This weakens by adding other symptoms of Ebola that Athenians didn’t experience.
b) This is the correct answer. It doesn’t affect the argument one way or another.
c) This weakens by suggesting that Ebola may not have been able to reach Athens at the time
of the outbreak.
d) This gives a reason for why the Ebola virus was different from the Athenian epidemic.
e) This gives a reason for why the Ebola virus was different from the Athenian epidemic.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that does not weaken the argument. Instead, it does nothing.

8. Analyzing the Stimulus

Let’s look at the structure of this argument:
Conclusion: The article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists who claim that
more wolves are killed than born each year on Vancouver Island.
Evidence: The claim was bolstered by the fact that the number of wolves has remained
constant, but failed to take into account that environmentalists have been introducing
new wolves into the population for twenty years.

Answering the Question

a) This is not stated in the argument.
b) This is the claim that the author disputes.

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

c) This is not stated in the argument.

d) This is not stated in the argument.
e) This is the correct answer.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the author’s conclusion.

9. Analyzing the Stimulus

We’re given a set of statements here. Apparently, the number of transistors and the processing
speed of microchips have both doubled every 18 months for the past few decades. Each
doubling also results in a corresponding doubling of production costs.

Answering the Question

a) We’re not given any information about the efficacy of this approach.
b) We aren’t told anything about the retail cost of computers.
c) We aren’t told anything about whether or not attempts were made to control the cost of
production.
d) This is the correct answer, and it is stated in the stimulus exactly.
e) We don’t know anything about what will happen in the future.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that is within the scope of the stimulus, and that must be true
based on the information given.

10. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is indecisive: Ms. Sandstrom should pay for the damage if she could reasonably
expect that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels’ farm.
The evidence is certain: Ms. Sandstrom wrote a newspaper column about a weird natural
phenomenon that occurred on the Mendels’ farm, which led many people to trespass and
damage the farm.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: if someone can reasonably expect their actions to lead to
damage to someone else’s property, then he or she should pay for that damage.

Answering the Question

a) This is the correct answer, and it connects the gap between the evidence and the
conclusion.
b) This answer choice switches around the necessity and sufficiency of the statements—it is a
false contrapositive.
c) This is out of the scope of the argument.
d) We do not know this nor do we need to know this for the argument to follow.
e) This is out of the scope of the argument.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that correctly connects the evidence with the conclusion.

11. Analyzing the Stimulus

We’re given a set of statements here. First, we’re told that Meyer was found to have
committed scientific fraud by his employer. On investigation, Meyer’s PhD-granting institute,

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

the University of Williamstown, found that he had not falsified evidence on his thesis—buy they
revoked his PhD anyway.

Answering the Question

a) There’s no evidence that Meyer committed fraud during the course of his PhD.
b) Admittance to the PhD program doesn’t help.
c) There’s no evidence that Meyer falsified any of his academic work.
d) This is the correct answer. He committed scientific fraud outside of his PhD, but it still
counts under this stipulation.
e) Hiring at the University of Williamstown is out of scope.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that helps to justify the university’s decision.

12. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: kickboxing aerobics is highly risky compared to other exercise.
The evidence is certain: overextension can be damaging, and occurs often when beginners try to
match skilled practitioners.

Answering the Question

a) This may or may not be true, but the stimulus doesn’t tell us this one way or another.
b) This is the correct answer, since we’re told many injuries come from beginners emulating
experts.
c) This may or may not be true—we don’t know.
d) This may or may not be true—we don’t know.
e) This is not necessarily true.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that is most likely to be true based on the information given.

13. Analyzing the Stimulus

Let’s look at the structure of this stimulus:
Conclusion: The trial was worthwhile.
Evidence: Even though it will have little effect on the company’s behaviour, the trial will
still provide useful information on the company’s practices.

Answering the Question

a) This is not stated in the argument.
b) This is a premise.
c) This is a premise.
d) This is the correct answer.
e) This is not stated in the argument.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that accurately states the conclusion of the argument.

14. Analyzing the Stimulus

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

Waller argues that, if ESP really did exist, then the public would generally accept it, due to the
provability of these powers.
Chin argues that, conversely, it’s impossible to satisfy sceptics, and so the public opinion will
always sway toward sceptics for as long as they remain close-minded.

Answering the Question

a) Neither Waller not Chin argues this.
b) Chin argues against this, but Waller’s argument doesn’t require this (he only speaks to the
general public.)
c) Only Chin talks about sceptics.
d) This is the correct answer. Waller argues this, but Chin disputes it.
e) Both Chin and Waller disagree with this statement.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that both Chin and Waller touch on, and that each disagrees with
the opinion of the other on.

15. Analyzing the Stimulus

The counselor’s conclusion is decisive: Hagerle owes her an apology.
The evidence is certain: Hagerle apologized to the physician for having lied to her, and Hagerle
told the same lie to the counsellor.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: if someone has apologized to someone else for a lie, then
anyone else who has be lied to by the same person deserves an apology.

Answering the Question

a) “Capability” is out of the scope of the argument.
b) There’s no distinction between “neither” and “both” here.
c) This is the correct answer, and fits our prephrase exactly.
d) This doesn’t bring the idea of apologizing to someone else (in this case, the physician.)
e) This isn’t necessary. We just need to apologize to everyone else if we apologize to one
person. This is a mistaken reversal.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that fills the gap in the counselor’s reasoning.

16. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: next year’s census should reveal that Weston’s population has
declined since the last census, which occurred ten years ago.
The evidence is certain: it was established by an address change survey that more households
moved out of Weston than into it by a ratio of 2:1.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: this ignores the possibility that people are being born at a
greater rate than people are moving out of Weston.

Answering the Question

a) We’re told that the ratio of moving out vs. moving in was 2:1, so this doesn’t change
anything.
b) What might happen by the time the next census rolls around is out of the scope of the
argument.

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

c) “Many” people does not account for the 2:1 ratio difference. It’s not a definite enough
claim.
d) This is the correct answer. This suggests that the families who were moving out were
bigger (had more members) than those moving in or staying.
e) Jobs are out of the scope of the argument.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that strengthens the argument by identifying the gap in reasoning
and attempting to bridge it.

17. Analyzing the Stimulus

Let’s look at the structure of this argument.
Conclusion: People should not necessarily rid themselves of the tendency to make
cognitive errors when predicting how an event will affect their future happiness.
Evidence: We make a visual error regarding parallel lines, and it would be unacceptable
to have this corrected.
Reasoning: The author proceeds by means of analogy here—our visual tendencies as
related to our cognitive tendencies.

Answering the Question

a) No alternative event is given, nor is inevitability discussed.
b) No assumption is called into question here—remember, we’re given an analogy.
c) This is the correct answer.
d) The argument uses a similar situation, but that’s not what the conclusion is. The situation is
used to bolster the author’s reasoning.
e) No generalizations are present in this argument.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the structure of the argument.

18. Analyzing the Stimulus

Here we are given a principle and an application of it. The principle tells us that an art auction
house is guilty of misrepresentation when its description deliberately attempts to mislead
bidders, even if it identifies these descriptions as an opinion. In the application, we’re told that
Healy’s was guilty of misrepresentation—it described a vase as mid-eighteenth century when it
was really a reproduction, and it states that its descriptions are opinions.
- In order to solve this, we need to know whether or not this was done to
intentionally mislead or not.

Answering the Question

a) This is a pretty strong answer choice, as it makes it more likely that Healy’s intentionally
mislead. What makes it weaker than answer e), though, is that we’re just given a likelihood,
and not a definitive argument that Healy’s was trying to mislead.
b) Knowledge is out of scope.
c) Healy’s policy outside of the principle given is out of the scope of the argument.
d) This does not touch at all on whether or not there was an intentional misrepresentation.
e) This is the correct answer and tells us definitively that Healy’s listed the false date
intentionally to bring the price up.

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that helps to make the application of the principle more
complete.

19. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: it is not the case that prehistoric Homo sapiens bred with
Neanderthals.
The evidence is certain: the DNA of modern humans is significantly different from the DNA of
Neanderthals.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: if there is a significant difference in the DNA of modern
humans and that of Neanderthals, then the two cannot be related.

Answering the Question

a) This helps to create a connection between Neanderthals and humans, not sever it.
b) This would not help the argument flow, since it would make the evidence less likely to lead
to the conclusion.
c) This is the correct answer. Homo sapiens have an equal relation to both Neanderthals and
contemporary humans, so it makes sense that they would be related to both.
d) Geography is out of scope.
e) This is about differences, not similarities, in DNA.

20. Analyzing the Stimulus

Let’s diagram out of the structure of this argument so it’s easier to visualize:
Lower COLMore consumersMore profitTraffic decreases

Answering the Question

a) We don’t know that decreasing traffic will lead to anything.
b) This is the correct answer, and it follows the chain.
c) We don’t know that decreasing traffic will lead to anything.
d) We don’t know that decreasing traffic will lead to anything.
e) This should be the opposite way around—an increase in consumers leads to an increase in
profit.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that must be true based on the information given.

21. Analyzing the Stimulus

Let’s look at the structure of this argument:
Evidence: Domestic long-distance calls between 9 and 5 cost 15 cents per minute; all
others cost 10 cents.
Conclusion: A domestic long-distance call that does not cost 10 cents costs 15 cents.

Answering the Question

a) The evidence matches here, but the conclusion doesn’t. It should be the opposite way
around.
b) The evidence matches here, but the conclusion doesn’t. It uses the condition instead of the
location.

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

c) The evidence matches here, but the conclusion doesn’t. The negative should be used in the
first part of the conclusion, not the second.
d) The evidence matches here, but the conclusion doesn’t. It uses the condition when it
should use the location.
e) This is the correct answer. Both the evidence and the conclusion match the stimulus.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that matches the stimulus in tone, structure, and argument.

22. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: child one was wrong to push child two if he or she intended to hurt
child two.
The evidence is certain: child two was injured and child one understands the difference between
right and wrong.
The reasoning is implicit and informal: it’s wrong for someone to injure someone else if he or
she understands the difference between right and wrong.

Answering the Question

a) This offers a qualification for the argument, but doesn’t support it in any way.
b) This is the correct answer, and fills the gap in reasoning neatly.
c) This is backwards; it connects the conclusion to the evidence, not the evidence to the
conclusion.
d) We’re talk about intent and not about thinking about whether an act would injure.
e) Responsibility is out of the scope of the argument.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that bridges the evidence and the conclusion, allowing the
argument to follow.

23. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: some makes of cars are more common in some areas of the country
than they are in others.
The evidence is certain: an experiment showed that people tend to overestimate the percentage
of people who own a certain make of car in their locale.
- What’s wrong with this? The experiment lends support to the author’s conclusion,
but it’s not definitive. It’s just one study. The conclusion, then, takes for granted
that just because something could be true, it is true.

Answering the Question

a) This is irrelevant. We need to focus on the reasoning error, not on an exception in statistics.
b) This is the correct answer, and fits our prephrase exactly.
c) This is untrue. A wide geographical region is taken into account.
d) There is no contradictory evidence given.
e) This is simply untrue—the author meant to apply the statistical evidence to the conclusion,
and did so.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in the author’s reasoning.

Ivy Global
 Preptests 63 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)

24. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: most parking citations in university towns are issued to students.
The evidence is certain: in university towns during the school year, police give far more parking
citations than when students are out of town.
- What’s wrong with this? Well, just because there are more students in town during
this time doesn’t mean that they are necessarily being given the tickets. These
tickets cold be issued to visitors, parents, spectators of sports games, professors,
etc.

Answering the Question

a) We don’t want to look at a “proportion” changing—we want the definite group, without a
comparison.
b) This is missing the time period where we see more of one group.
c) Again, this is missing the time period where we see more of one group.
d) Only one thing is increasing; in the stimulus both students and tickets increased.
e) This is the correct answer, and contains the same flaw that the stimulus does.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that matches the stimulus in tone, structure, and flaw.

25. Analyzing the Stimulus

The conclusion is decisive: only harsh criticism will cause the person who has been criticized to
change.
The evidence is certain: change requires a motive, and harsh criticism provides a motive.
- What’s wrong with this? The counselor assumes here that one route to change
(harsh criticism) is the only route, without giving evidence that there is no other way
to make someone change.

Answering the Question

a) This is the correct answer—it takes a sufficient condition (will lead to change) and
confuses it with a necessary one (is the only way to make someone change).
b) The primary goal of criticism is not mentioned in this argument, nor is it important (change
just needs to be one goal of criticism.)
c) The connection between motivation and change is well-established in the stimulus.
d) Aversion is out of the scope of the argument.
e) This is untrue; the argument never proves the falseness of a statement.

Double-Checking the Answer

This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the flaw in the counselor’s reasoning.

Ivy Global