Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 1 · Question 4

Incorrect. This answer has nothing to do with the test, which is what the Chemist and Anthropologist are debating. Also, just because something was prepared with toxin T doesn't mean that the toxin will be present in the finished product!

Incorrect. The Anthropologist's counterargument focuses on the acidic solution, not how long the powder was stored. We don't even know if it was stored for a long time. Also, she argues about whether toxin T is included in the powder, not whether it's active (or highly active).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Background - An Anthropologist thought a medicine had toxin T and tested. The test was negative, and she didn't report this.

Chemist: You received a negative test and didn't report it, so you're guilty of fraud.

Anthropologist: The test was done in an acidic solution, so the results were invalid.

Answer Anticipation:
What a stimulus . . . There's a lot going on. We broke it down into the background, which describes the situation that the Chemist and Anthropologist are arguing over, and then the arguments made by the Chemist and Anthropologist, which will help us look at the pieces that are relevant in each question attached to this stimulus.

This question asks us to strengthen the Anthropologist's counterargument. She concludes that the results of the test were invalid. Why? Because it was done in an acidic solution.

We're no chemistry experts here, but we do know that the premises didn't discuss anything about acidic solutions. However, the Anthropologist concludes that running the test in an acidic solution means the results of the test to find toxin T are invalid. As such, we should look for any answers that suggest some type of relationship between acid and toxin T that would mess with the test results—something like acid dissolves toxin T or prevents it from being detected in a test.

Answer Explanation:
This answer directly addresses the Anthropologist's argument. She says that the use of an acidic solution invalidates the test that searched for toxin T. If an acidic solution makes toxin T undetectable, then it shouldn't have been used in this test, rendering the results invalid. This answer strengthens her argument, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
This argument had three parts to it, and each question dealt with only one of those parts. By breaking the argument up, we were more easily able to focus just on the elements that mattered for the specific question. While the value of doing this is very apparent here because there were two questions, each about a different viewpoint, it's helpful in any question, as it'll let you focus on what's relevant to the question stem and what's there just to confuse you.

Incorrect. The ability to run another test doesn't speak to whether the test that was already run was invalid.

Incorrect. The Anthropologist's hypothesis is that the powder contains a "significant amount" of toxin T, which may be more than a very small amount. Additionally, this answer has nothing to do with acidity, so it doesn't play into her argument.