Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 3 · Question 10

Question prompt

Tires may be either Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

No one has shown that over/underinflation don’t hurt a tire’s tread, so they must hurt it.

Answer Anticipation

The opening line here can make it feel as if we’re headed into a specific method of reasoning - some type of elimination of alternatives. However, if we think about it for a second, that’s unlikely - after all, it doesn’t actually say anything! Of course a tire is either underinflated, overinflated, or neither - that’s just what those words mean. So this is a misdirect!
If we move past that, we can see an argument that commits one of our common errors in reasoning - an Absence of Evidence flaw. Whenever an argument uses a lack of evidence as a premise, you should start to expect this flaw. Additionally, when there are two viewpoints and the main point is the polar opposite of the opposing point (here, these things do hurt tires; they don’t), that’s another sign you’re dealing with this flaw.
Let’s look for an answer highlighting the Absence of Evidence flaw.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The argument assumes what Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer describes a Circular Reasoning flaw, but the conclusion is distinct from the premise, so this answer is incorrect.

  2. B
    The argument overlooks that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Whether or not over/underinflation harms tires is susceptible to proof - over- or underinflate a tire, and then measure the harm to the tread!

  3. C
    The argument fails to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    An argument doesn’t have to walk through how a process works to establish that such a process does, in fact, happen. (For example, if an argument says drinking caffeine raises your heart rate, and an elevated heart rate makes you excitable, so drinking coffee makes you excitable - that’s a valid argument, but it never establishes how drinking coffee raises your heart rate.)

  4. D
    The argument rejects the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    This answer is one way of describing an Absence of Evidence flaw. The argument establishes that it has not been proven that under/overinflating tires don’t harm the tread, and it thus concludes that it’s false that they don’t harm the tread (i.e., that it does harm the tread). That ignores the possibility that over/underinflation does not harm tire treads even though it hasn’t been proven, making this the correct answer.

  5. E
    The argument fails to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    It’s rare that failing to define a term is a flaw - only when that term is used in a non-standard manner or when it shifts in meaning is it a flaw. Since these terms seem to use pretty standard definitions of the word, and there’s no shift in meaning, this answer is wrong.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 11%
  2. B 10%
  3. C 5%
  4. D Credited 72%
  5. E 1%

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

View all discussions Start a discussion