Logical reasoning PrepTest 104 · Section 1 · Question 4

Question prompt

In Yasukawa's month–long study Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Weaken Questions

Stimulus Summary

Phenomenon - Over a month, the small bird survival rate was higher than the large bird survival rate
Yasukawa explanation - Size determines survival
Author’s explanation - Smaller birds are generally younger than larger ones (i.e., it’s age, not size)
Conclusion - Yasukawa’s explanation is probably wrong

Answer Anticipation

This is an interesting Misinterpretation question, as it doesn’t ask about a key term that is being misinterpreted. Instead, it’s asking about how the criticism might misunderstand the initial argument. So let’s dive in to see how that rebuttal works!
Yasukawa’s argument is a causal one, based on a correlation - small birds tend to survive better than large birds, so size factors into survival rates.
The Author’s explanation brings up a separate consideration - small birds tend to be younger than larger birds, and so the age explains the correlation/relationship.
In bringing up a separate consideration - and a correlation at that - the Author is herself making a few assumptions here, and we should see how they can play into a misinterpretation. Specifically, the Author is bringing up a correlation between size and age. As such, anything Yasukawa did to control for that relationship would go to highlight something the Author failed to consider/misunderstood. Let’s see if any answers bring that up.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Yasukawa compared the survival Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    If Yasukawa looked at a smaller and larger bird species, then those samples would each have birds of different ages. As such, the correlation that the Author brings up between age and size would be controlled for, and the criticism would fail. If this answer is true, then the Author misinterpreted the results of Yasukawa’s argument, so this is the correct answer.

  2. B
    Yasukawa examined blackbirds in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    There’s no indication that captivity plays a role in either size or survival rates, so this answer is out of scope.

  3. C
    Yasukawa did not compare Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    First, this comparison is out of scope, as what would matter is the relative size and survivability between species, not just the survival chances. Second, Yasukawa’s conclusion (and, therefore, the Author’s) is about only blackbirds, so other birds are out of scope.

  4. D
    Yasukawa noted that the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    First, this answer assumes a relationship between fights and survival, but there’s no evidence of that (maybe the fights are ceremonial and only for mating). Second, even if we assume that connection, this brings up a point that Yasukawa raises that cuts against his conclusion, so it’s hard to see how the opposing point that criticizes that view could misunderstand it because of this.

  5. E
    Yasukawa noted that the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Similar to other answers, it’s unclear how firmly established social hierarchies would be connected to survival.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 86%
  2. B 2%
  3. C 2%
  4. D 7%
  5. E 3%

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