Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 1 · Question 20

Incorrect. The similarity of the skeletons between the modern and prehistoric examples isn't relevant. It's the connection between skeleton and hunting behavior that the argument relies on. Additionally, "at least somewhat similar in . . . certain key respects" is necessary assumption language, not sufficient.

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that, if there were such a case, then a conclusion couldn't be drawn based on the similarity in the skeletons. There being such skeletons in existence is out of scope of that conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Lions and tigers have similar skeletons, but they have different hunting behaviors. Therefore, we can't use the skeletons of extinct animals to draw conclusions about their hunting behaviors.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts with an example where skeletons can't be used to reach a conclusion. It concludes by applying that logic to a similar situation—extinct animal skeletons. In making that jump, it's assuming that the example is a representative one—in other words, that the lion/tiger example is representative instead of an exception to a general rule.

As such, we should look for an answer that establishes that example as being representative—that if a certain conclusion can't be drawn in the one provided example, then it can't be drawn in similar situations.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the given example as being sufficient to allow similar conclusions to be drawn in similar situations. Since skeletal anatomy is inadequate to determine lion and tiger hunting behavior, this answer guarantees that skeletal anatomy is never adequate to conclude something about hunting behavior, and thus the conclusion that it can't be done is valid.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument uses a single example to reach a conclusion about another situation, the assumption can be viewed in two ways:
(1) The argument is assuming that the two situations are similar in all key respects
(2) The argument is assuming that the example is representative of all examples, and not an exception to a generalization

Both are essentially the same flaw, but answer choices can be phrased to reflect either, so it's important to know both!

Incorrect. This answer is so close! If you were caught on it, you should have compared it to the similar (C). The issue here is that the second half of this answer talks about concluding something about the skeleton based on hunting behavior. The argument is about the reverse—concluding something about hunting behavior based on skeleton.

Incorrect. The stimulus features a situation where similarities in skeletal anatomy are relied on, so this answer about differences in skeletal anatomy is out of scope.