Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 2 · Question 10

This answer doesn’t perfectly fit into our anticipation, but it does establish that residents can have these restrictions put in place without losing something “indispensable” to their training. If there was an indispensable aspect of the training that would be precluded by shorter hours, then the argument would fall apart - you can’t dispense of something that’s indispensable. Circling back to the anticipation, since ATCs and NPPOs are operating under these short hours, then there can’t be anything indispensable about their jobs that requires long hours, so this answer actually does establish a relevant similarity/rule out a relevant difference - it fits into our anticipation, even if that’s not clear at first. Either way, this answer is correct.

This answer is suspect because it brings up a difference between the groups, and the argument relies on them being similar. The argument can work without residents having a more direct effect on the lives of others than the other professions - it’d work just as well if they had an equivalent effect!

This answer can feel correct, but it establishes a very specific relationship - a directly proportional one. However, that relationship doesn’t have to exist here for the argument to work - it’s possible that, instead, these professions “fall off a cliff” and stop performing satisfactorily at, say, 75 hours - but it doesn’t get worse if they work 90 hours.

The argument is about those who do work in life-or-death circumstances, so those who don’t are out of scope.

The desires of the residents don't speak to whether allowing shorter hours is a good idea.