PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 13

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  Samuel is the person choosing, his mother supplies the vehicles, and the sedan and convertible are the two options. That beginning could match Yusef, Carl's, and the two coffees. But where do we rule out the sedan?

  The convertible holds Samuel and his three friends. Nothing says the sedan can't hold them too. Its more powerful engine doesn't disqualify it. The coffee argument tells us the coffee wasn't French Roast; A never gives us the matching reason Samuel cannot choose the sedan. Showing one vehicle works is not the same as eliminating the other.

• B

  The park and overpass are two possible routes, but disliking a route doesn't make taking it impossible. Anna could tolerate the mud or use the overpass despite not liking it. So the conclusion that she never walks to work doesn't follow.

  The conclusion also abandons both routes rather than selecting the one left after a firm exclusion. The coffee argument has a reason to rule out French Roast and leaves Mocha Java available. B supplies inconveniences without making that same selection.

• C

  Neither vacation allows Rose to complete the planned hike: July gives her too little time, while October gives her enough time but a closed trail. That supports the conclusion that a vacation she takes won't be the one she planned.

  But the original eliminates one option and identifies the other. C doesn't conclude that Rose must take the July vacation or must take the October vacation. It explains why both schedules fail to deliver the intended trip. Sound reasoning alone isn't enough; it needs to be the same reasoning.

• D
  Correct

  Werdix plays Carl's role: it supplies the two choices. Arno plays Yusef's role: he is the person considering those choices. Sales corresponds to French Roast, the option ruled out. Research corresponds to Mocha Java, the option left.

  Arno won't take sales while another job is available, and Werdix has offered research too. So sales is excluded here. If he accepts one of these jobs, research is the only one left—just as getting the decaf coffee from Carl's makes Mocha Java the only remaining possibility.

  Neither argument proves that the person must use that source. Arno could turn down both jobs, just as Yusef could have bought coffee elsewhere. Both conclusions preserve the condition: if he chooses from the stated source, this is what the choice must be.

• E

  Keeping the assistant reduces efficiency, and losing the assistant also reduces efficiency. The argument therefore predicts the same bad result either way, if no other solution is available. It doesn't rule out keeping the assistant and conclude Teresa must fire the assistant, or vice versa. Both paths leading to one consequence is different from eliminating one path and identifying the other.