PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 25

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  The zoo might carry out both projects. Evidence that it will build the primate house doesn't rule out refurbishing the polar bear exhibit. That is a mistake, but the direction differs: A confirms one option and rejects the other. The burglary argument rejects one suspect and declares the other guilty. Match what happens to each option, not just the presence of two options.

• B

  Being picked from the lineup is presented as a reason charging Watson would be reasonable. Failing to be picked doesn't rule out other evidence that could justify a charge. B treats one supporting condition as though it were required. It doesn't eliminate one person from a list of suspects and thereby declare another person guilty; the focus remains on evidence about Watson.

• C

  Borrowing is presented as necessary for Iano to upgrade and remain competitive, and failing to compete is described as worse than taking on the debt. Those claims support the recommendation to accept the less undesirable route. Unlike the police argument, C supplies a requirement linking the recommended action to avoiding the worse outcome. It isn't merely dismissing one of two mentioned possibilities and assuming the other must occur.

• D
  Correct

  Evansville and Rivertown correspond to Schaeffer and Forster: they are the two possibilities under consideration. Deciding against Evansville corresponds to clearing Schaeffer. Declaring that Baxim will therefore move to Rivertown corresponds to declaring Forster guilty.

  But perhaps Baxim will move to New York City, or won't move at all. Considering two destinations doesn't establish that they are the only possible outcomes. D makes the same mistake by treating the known options as an exhaustive list.

• E

  This explicitly says Slater and Gonzales are the only viable candidates. That is the missing restriction in the burglary argument, which merely names two suspects. E also reaches a likelihood conclusion from Slater's low chances, rather than claiming certainty. A limited field with one weak candidate supports the other's prospects without the original assumption that no unmentioned possibility exists.