PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 20

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  Being nutritious does not establish whether a vegetable is harmful in large quantities. The answer moves from one property of vegetables to another property under a new condition. It does not classify a particular thing and then carry a relationship involving that thing over to its category. The conclusion would need an additional claim about harm from large quantities.

• B
  Correct

  At first, “lower in fat” may look wrong because the original discusses what television created. But that comparison is doing the same job as “gave rise to.” It is the relationship, not an extra thing we need to squeeze into our three-part map.

  Avocados match music videos: the particular thing being classified. Fruit matches art forms: the broader category. Pound cake matches television: the third thing. Pound cake is lower in fat than avocados, just as television gave rise to music videos. Since avocados are fruit, pound cake is lower in fat than some fruit, just as television gave rise to an art form.

  The subject matter and the relationship have changed, but the category connection stays the same. Do not reject a parallel just because its relationship is expressed by a comparison. Follow what each part is doing.

• C

  This reasons about different people's tastes. It uses the claim that no taste is universal to connect one person's dislike with other people's preferences. There is no particular thing placed in a broader category, and no relationship with a third thing that then carries over to that category. The repeated “should also agree” wording does not supply the missing structure.

• D

  This makes a prediction about a person's nourishment from what most people with similar eating habits do. The conclusion is only probable, and the support is a general tendency. The original gives a category relationship that makes its conclusion follow; it does not infer that one person probably resembles most members of a group.

• E

  Preferring fruit to vegetables does not show that sweetness is the reason for the preference. A person could prefer fruit for some other reason and still prefer bread to cake.

  Structurally, E compares two different pairs: fruit with vegetables, then cake with bread. Sweetness is offered as a basis for transferring a preference between those pairs. The original instead places one thing inside a category and carries over an existing relationship with that thing. There is no matching category connection here.