Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. A counterexample needs to be more specific than the general statements made in the stimulus here.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Predictions require details, and inventing means having a detailed conception, so predicting an invention is a contradiction.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a real brain-burner, but luckily we only have to describe the method of reasoning behind it, not identify a flaw or understand the logic of it!

Let's start with understanding the structure of the argument. The initial statement establishes something necessary for making a prediction. From there, it pivots to a conclusion ("But clearly," the former word indicating the pivot and the latter indicating it's a conclusion) that something is self-contradictory, before ending with a premise ("for") that defines what inventing means and another premise ("and") pointing out where the contradiction comes from.

The argument has quite a few pieces, but with our understanding of each, we should be able to find an answer choice that reflects them!

Answer Explanation:
The argument does appeal to a definition ("inventing means . . . ") and concludes that predicting an invention is impossible (if something is self-contradictory, then it can't happen), so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Some Methods of Reasoning questions have unbelievably convoluted or complex logic behind them. And that's fine—because we don't need to understand all the details of the argument! We just need to understand the structure enough to be able to identify the elements of how the argument functions—we don't need to understand the logic and find gaps in the reasoning. Don't waste time doing that!

Incorrect. The conclusion is that predicting an invention is self-contradictory, which would counter a hypothesis that predicting an invention is possible/isn't self-contradictory. However, the stimulus never raises that as a hypothesis or viewpoint, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. There's no problem—scientific or otherwise—raised in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer is too broad—the stimulus is only about predicting inventions, not predicting any event.