Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 2 · Question 19

Incorrect. This answer is correct in calling the statement in question a conclusion, but it's wrong in stating that the argument relies on the numerosity of microorganisms to back it up. It relies on their prolific nature and ability to adapt to medicine.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Most diseases will evolve to overcome medicines, so it's unlikely we'll ever cure all disease.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument opens with a prediction—it's unlikely we'll ever cure all disease. Predictions tend to be conclusions, and this prediction being the main point of the argument is backed up by the fact that the rest of the stimulus presents factual information about disease and its cause that support that we'll never be able to fully cure all disease (because of the predictable response the causes have to medications).

Since that opening line is the statement in question, we should look for an answer that states it's the main point of the argument. And since this is question #19, we should expect several answers stating that it's the main point, requiring us to dive into the other details to find the one that properly describes the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is correct in calling the statement in question a conclusion, and it properly characterizes the response of microorganisms to medicines as the support for it. This is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Predictions tend to be conclusions. Also, when an Argument Structure later in the section (i.e., a hard Argument Structure question) has a more straightforward argument, expect multiple answers that describe the function of the statement in question correctly (e.g., premise vs. conclusion) while getting details of the rest of the argument wrong.

Incorrect. This answer gets the argument backwards, calling the premise the conclusion and vice versa.

Incorrect. The statement in question could be called a generalization (though that's also arguably a bit off), but it is a prediction, it isn't used to predict how microorganisms react to medicine. This answer describes the statement in question as a premise, not a conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer is correct in calling the statement in question a conclusion, but it's wrong in stating that most microorganisms are immune to medicines designed to kill them. The stimulus states that they evolve immunities to these medicines. (It also doesn't state that the medicines are designed to kill these microorganisms—they could be found in nature and not designed at all, for instance.)