PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 19

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  A hurricane would bring reduced tourism, but the answer rules out the hurricane and then rules out reduced tourism. That's a different direction. Something else could still reduce tourism without a hurricane. Our original rules out a situation because its required sign is absent; A removes one possible cause and assumes the result disappears too.

• B
  Correct

  Not buying a house corresponds to the jury not returning a verdict. Renting an apartment corresponds to the media trucks remaining outside. The rule says the first situation would require the second.

  Peter didn't rent an apartment, just as there are no media trucks. So he can't be in the no-house situation: that would require an apartment rental. He must have bought a house, just as the jury must have returned a verdict. The roles and the direction of the reasoning match throughout.

• C

  Here the car not working is the situation that triggers Renate's promised ride. The answer then says the car isn't working and concludes that the ride occurred. Even setting aside whether Renate kept the promise, this starts by establishing the trigger. Our original starts with the absence of the result that the trigger would require.

• D

  A broken television would lead Kay to a movie. The next premise establishes that the television was broken, so the answer concludes that Kay went to the movie. This moves forward from a situation to its stated result. To match the original, we'd need no movie trip and then a conclusion that the television wasn't broken.

• E

  Ralph telling Manuela would lead her to solve the problem. The answer says he didn't tell her, but that doesn't establish that someone else solved it. Perhaps nobody solved it, or Manuela learned about it another way. The original uses an absent required result to rule out its triggering situation; E has neither that evidence nor that conclusion.