Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 2 · Question 1

Question prompt

Press release: A comprehensive Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Medical Studies - No reason to think normal coffee drinking hurts the heart
Therefore - Drinking coffee is safe

Answer Anticipation

Wow, there are actually quite a few flaws here for a first question in a section!
This conclusion is based on studies, so we should start by considering a Sampling flaw. Here, the premise is about a review of all medical studies, which strongly suggests that, between them all, there was a large and representative sample, so this flaw isn’t present.
Study-based arguments also frequently have Correlation/Causation flaws. Here, there is causality, but it’s actually anti-causal - drinking coffee doesn’t have a negative effect. So we need to look elsewhere.
Let’s go to the conclusion to see if there are any shifts in the logic. The conclusion is about all coffee drinkers, but the studies showed no connection between drinking normal amounts of coffee and heart problems. As such, if many coffee drinkers drink more than the normal amount, then the conclusion doesn’t follow.
That conclusion also talks about drinking coffee being safe. There are two issues there. First, the studies were on harm to the heart, but just because coffee doesn’t harm the heart doesn’t mean it’s safe (maybe it harms the liver). Also, just because there’s no evidence something is dangerous doesn’t mean it is safe, just that it might be safe. That’s an absence of evidence flaw!
Let’s find one of these three flaws as an answer.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The review was only Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Bringing together the results of many studies is a valid way to draw a conclusion - one doesn’t need to do an experiment as long as they’re relying on reliable data.

  2. B
    The health of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    This answer highlights one of the flaws we identified. The review of medical studies spoke to potential harm of coffee to “the coffee-drinker’s heart.” However, the conclusion is about overall safety - which is broader than the premises. This answer highlights that shift and is thus correct.

  3. C
    Coffee drinkers might choose Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The conclusion is about whether coffee is safe - not whether coffee is consumed with other substances that might cause harm.

  4. D
    Other beverages besides coffee Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    First, other beverages are out of scope. Second, having “some effect” on the heart isn’t necessarily a harmful effect, so the second half of this answer is also not necessarily in scope.

  5. E
    Drinking unusually large amount Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This answer is about drinking unusually large amounts of coffee, which we discussed as being the source of a potential flaw, but this answer doesn’t state that it ignores the harm to the heart caused by drinking so much coffee. Second, this answer brings up a separate cause of both coffee drinking and heart damage which, even if there were a correlation between the two, would serve to support the conclusion that coffee drinking itself is safe.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 19%
  2. B Credited 62%
  3. C 5%
  4. D 1%
  5. E 13%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion