Logical reasoning PrepTest 104 · Section 4 · Question 13

This argument establishes a premise that if Robin can’t solve something, then none of her friends can. That directly ties what is true about Robin to what is true about her group of friends - it doesn’t assume it. It also then goes on to jump from her friends to everyone, but it doesn’t discuss whether Robin can solve it. There are issues here, but those issues aren’t a jump from a part to a whole.

This answer uses what has been true of Hank to jump to a prediction about how useful he’ll be in the future to the relay team - that’s a separate flaw. Additionally, the argument doesn’t jump from what is true of Hank to what is true of the relay team, since it talks about whether Hank can “help” that team win - not whether they would win/lose.

This answer discusses only individuals, no groups. When it says “anyone else,” it’s talking about each person individually, not everyone as a collective.

This answer talks about members of a club and the club itself, so it does discuss a part and a whole. And it jumps from a premise about no member being able to afford something, to a conclusion about the club as a whole not being able to afford it. That’s a Part to Whole flaw, as it’s possible that the club could pool their money to afford the tents in a way that an individual couldn’t. This answer has the same flaw as the stimulus, so it’s the correct answer.

This answer jumps from society being mistaken - the whole - to each individual in society being wrong - the part. So it’s committing a Whole to Part flaw, not the Part to Whole flaw from the stimulus.