Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 4 · Question 1

Question prompt

Jones fell unconscious on Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Sufficient & Necessary Questions / Weaken Questions

Stimulus Summary

Suspicion - Jones’s unconsciousness was caused by a chemical
Science - The chemical causes a mineral deficiency, which causes skin inflammation
Jones didn’t have inflamed skin when admitted to the hospital
Diagnosis - Murder! No, just kidding - Jones didn’t swallow the chemical.

Answer Anticipation

We’re tasked with undermining the physician’s conclusion that Jones didn’t ingest the chemical, so we’re looking for something that suggests maybe he did!
A key symptom of ingesting the chemical is that it results in skin inflammation. However, when admitted, Jones had no such inflammation. Doesn’t that prove he didn’t ingest the chemical?
Note the qualifier - “when he was admitted.” Timelines often lead to temporal flaws when in an argument. Here, it’s possible that the reaction that causes the skin inflammation - by way of a mineral deficiency - could take some time. Maybe it requires the body to pass a lot of the mineral out over the next day, and then the skin inflammation happens, while loss of consciousness occurs much faster. Or maybe it happens nearly immediately, and Jones’s skin inflammation already subsided!
Let’s find an answer highlighting something about this timeline.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Jones did not know Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    If anything, not knowing it was dangerous makes it more likely he ingested it. That said, this answer has nothing to do with the skin inflammation, so it’s out of scope.
  2. B
    Jones had suffered inflammation Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    If this answer tied the skin inflammation to the near past - in between when he could have ingested the chemical and when he showed up at the emergency room - then it would weaken the argument. But as written, it leaves open the possibility that his skin inflammation happened when he was a baby, and so it’s incorrect.
  3. C
    It takes 48 hours Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    This answer addresses the timeline issue to undermine the diagnosis. Jones was “rushed” to the hospital, so there’s a good chance there wasn’t 48 hours between when he ingested the chemical and when he got to the hospital. As such, the lack of skin inflammation doesn’t prove he didn’t ingest the chemical - that inflammation might be in his future!
  4. D
    Jones often worked with Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    If anything, regular exposure to the chemical means there’s a chance that he did accidentally ingest it. (Or he knows proper safety! If the answer could arguably strengthen and weaken the argument, then it’s too vague to do either.)
  5. E
    Deficiency in minerals other Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Jones didn’t present with skin inflammation, so this answer is out of scope.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 6%
  2. B 1%
  3. C Credited 92%
  4. D 1%
  5. E 0%

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

  • Ans Choice A 3 replies

    Started by ankita96

  • Correct Answer 1 reply

    Started by Lizzie-Annerino

View all discussions Start a discussion