Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. Many would argue that the same is true today! In any case, this answer is too weak in stating that "[m]any" of the books were of low quality, as that means many others could have been of high quality. And, additionally, there's no indication that the literary quality of the available books affects how much people read.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
100 years ago - Fewer diversions
Therefore - 100 years ago, people read more

Answer Anticipation:
There's not much to this argument, so we can simplify it to a few words. If we do so, we get: Fewer diversions, so read more.

Notice that both of these parts of the argument compare the past to the present. Compared to today, there were fewer diversions 100 years ago. Therefore, compared to today, they must have read more.

This assumes that the past and present were similar in other relevant ways in comparing free time, thus allowing the decreased number of diversions meaning an increased amount of time spent on the ones that were also present!

For instance, it's possible that people had less free time back in the day, or that the proportion of their free time spent reading was much smaller.

As such, answers that bring up relevant differences in free time between the present and 100 years ago will weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a relevant difference between the past and present. If people had less free time than people do today, then they'd have less time for any individual diversion, including reading. So while there may have been fewer diversions, there was also less time to engage in them, suggesting that they may have read less than we do today.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument compares time periods, it's generally assuming that relevant factors haven't changed between them. See if you can find an answer highlighting a similarity or difference, depending on what the question is asking.

Incorrect. First, there being more books sold today would, if anything, suggest more reading is being done today. That said, buying a book and reading a book are two different things. Many people buy books they don't read; many people read books they don't buy (think libraries). Also, people could spend their time re-reading books, further divorcing the number of books sold from the total amount of reading done.

Incorrect. Similar to (C), buying a book and reading a book are two different things, and the cost of books is a step further away than that.

Incorrect. There's no indication that this isn't also true today! This answer is trying to get you to think that bringing up something else that would have taken up people's leisure time would suggest they did that instead of reading. However, there's no indication that people spent a lot of their time watching horse-racing, just that it was popular. It could be something that everyone enjoyed on occasion instead of something that people did every weekend. Even then, that leaves plenty of time open to read more.