Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 4 · Question 6

Incorrect. The information in the stimulus is about what people do, not what they're better at. It's possible that chess experts are better at analyzing the consequences of their moves, but decisions based on pattern recognition lead to better outcomes.

Incorrect. While this would bring them closer to how experts play, they may lack the requisite experience to use that technique, and thus it might not be advisable for them to do so.

Incorrect. The argument correlates pattern recognition with being an expert player, but it doesn't state that switching is a causal factor in making one an expert.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Chess novice—Decisions based on consequence analysis
Chess expert—Decisions based on pattern recognition

Answer Anticipation:
This argument compares the methods used by chess players of differing skill levels. However, there's not a lot of overlap between the statements, and so the correct answer will likely generalize or infer from one of these statements individually, or draw a more general conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
The pattern recognition is based on "having been in a similar position before" and then moving "based on information recalled"—so that technique is based on memory. This answer is an implication of the method used by experts, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
In Must Be True questions that don't feature a lot of overlap in the statements or conditional logic, don't spend a ton of time trying to anticipate a specific answer. Instead, focus on getting an understanding of the information in the stimulus and then leaving yourself plenty of time to analyze the answer choices.

Incorrect. Ways to improve pattern-recognition skills are out of scope of the stimulus. If anything, in stating that the benefit comes from experience of being in that situation in chess matches before, the stimulus suggests that developing these skills in other contexts might not be helpful.