Logical reasoning PrepTest 112 · Section 4 · Question 20
Question prompt
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
Valid or Flawed
Question Type
Stimulus Summary
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
AThe social impact of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
The social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine isn’t particularly well understood. If it’s much better understood than most new drugs being tested, then those drugs, too, don’t have their social impact well understood, and the principle raised by the Advocate suggests they shouldn’t be released yet - in other words, the pace of release should be slowed down. This answer is interesting in that it brings up a difference between the new antihistamine and the other drugs, but it does so in a way that makes them similar in a key way (it’s better understood, so they’re all not well understood). -
BThe social impact of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
The conclusion is that there should be a “general” reduction in the pace of new drug releases, so this answer about the social impact of “some” new drugs being poorly understood is too weak to affect it. It also doesn’t discuss the antihistamine at all, so it’s ignoring the logic of the argument itself. -
CThe economic success of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
The economic success of new drugs is out of scope of whether they should be released since the premise of the argument considers only the social impact. -
DThe new antihistamine is Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
First, there’s no indication that chemical similarity is relevant to social impact. Second, this answer is about “some” new drugs, and the conclusion is about a “general” reduction in release, making this answer too weak to affect the conclusion. -
EThe new antihistamine should Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Tempting answer! This one does seem to make the new antihistamine representative of most new drugs. However, it actually negates the relationship of the stimulus. There, the argument assumes that if the new antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market, then most new drugs shouldn’t, yet, either. This answer states that if the new antihistamine should be on the market, then most new drugs should be. Close, but no cigar.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
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
-
Answer Choice E 1 reply
Started by NULL
-
Lessons from this Question 2 replies
Started by AndrewArabie
-
Some help with this one 3 replies
Started by Henleys