PrepTest 152, Section 4, Question 5

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  The low cost is a reason in favor of traveling to either country. The recommendation is to act now instead of waiting. There is no problem with one destination that leads Jennifer to choose the other. To match the hiring argument, the evidence would need to distinguish the two destinations, rather than favor travel generally.

• B
  Correct

  Jennifer is choosing between Mexico and Peru, just as the businessperson is choosing between Chen and Brenner. The floods make the Peruvian sites difficult to reach, corresponding to Brenner's coworker problem. The recommendation selects Mexico, corresponding to Chen, because the other option has that drawback.

  This doesn't repeat the original's statement that only two applicants meet the requirements. I initially expected that exact restriction, but the central reasoning still matches: a choice between two alternatives, a problem with one, and a recommendation to select the other. We need the closest reasoning, not an identical sentence about eligibility.

• C

  The limited opportunity is a reason to choose according to interest regardless of cost. It doesn't identify a drawback in Mexico or Peru and recommend the other destination. The conclusion supplies a way to decide; it doesn't make the original's choice by pointing to one option's problem.

• D

  This recommends both destinations because both are inexpensive. That would be like deciding to hire both applicants because hiring them is affordable. The businessperson instead points to a disadvantage in one candidate and chooses the other.

• E

  This uses a cost difference to decide the order of the visits, while keeping both destinations in the plan. The hiring version would be: hire Chen now and Brenner later. But the businessperson's recommendation is to hire Chen, not to postpone hiring Brenner until another time.