Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 4 · Question 13

Incorrect. First, the argument doesn't set out to undermine support for the policy—there's no statement that it should be rescinded or that it shouldn't be supported. Second, it doesn't highlight that outside factors could account for success; rather, it argues outside factors might undermine its success.

Incorrect. Assuming for a second that raising the bats is an objection to the policy, the argument doesn't do so in order to show that it's irrelevant to the policy but rather to show that the policy will fail. And that's assuming the bats can be considered an objection to the policy instead of something the policy fails to cover.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the officials who are enforcing a policy, or of them failing to do so.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the policy failing to be universally adopted. The bats don't highlight a situation where the policy isn't adopted since the policy deals with imported domesticated animals and the bats are wild.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Britain quarantines imported domesticated animals to prevent rabies, but this won't stop a rabies outbreak forever because wild bats fly to Britain from Europe.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument's conclusion here brings up a prediction—a certain policy can't continue to achieve its goal forever.

Here, the policy is to quarantine domesticated animals that head to Britain. The goal is to prevent a rabies outbreak. Why can't it work forever? Because it can't be used to control wild bats, who both have rabies and fly into Britain from continental Europe. Since the policy can't work to prevent one cause of the thing it's trying to stop, the author argues, it's destined to fail.

So the argument predicts that a policy is destined to fail because it can't apply to something that would result in it failing. Let's find an answer saying something to that effect.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the prediction that the policy will fail, and it describes the role of the bat discussion—to show something that the policy can't cover but that would still affect its success.

Key Takeaway:
When a specific situation or example is raised in order to lead to the author's conclusion, be sure to understand very well how that example/situation works in the argument. Knowing that it's an example probably isn't going to be enough!