Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 4 · Question 4

Incorrect. It is a premise supporting the conclusion—the similarity between this behavior and that of modern predators is why the argument concludes that another similarity exists.

Incorrect. The author never rejects this, instead using it as the basis for an analogy with modern predators.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Two sets of dinosaur tracks showed matching turns, suggesting the predator was matching the stride of the prey. Modern predators do this right before the kill, so the dinosaur probably attacked right after these tracks were made.

Answer Anticipation:
While this is an Argument Structure question, knowing what method of reasoning in being used can help us determine the function of the statement in question. Here, in using what's known about a modern predator to draw a conclusion about an ancient predator, the argument is reasoning with a comparison or analogy.

With that in mind, we can look at the statement in question and see how it fits into this method of reasoning. We'd normally think about whether the statement is a part of the author's argument or an opposing point, but there is no opposing point here, so it has to be a part of the author's argument.

The statement in question here establishes that the predatory dinosaur had matched the stride of its prey. Looking at the analogy, we can see that this is the same thing that the modern predator does right before striking. Based on this similarity, the argument concludes that the dinosaur will do what the modern predator does—strike soon.

So the statement in question is a part of the analogy that is used to draw the main point of the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This is the correct answer. The matching of the stride is seen in the tracks of these dinosaurs, and its similarity to modern predator behavior is what allows the conclusion about another similarity to be drawn.

Key Takeaway:
If you notice a common method of reasoning in any other question type, there's a good chance that you can use your knowledge of that reasoning to help you answer the question. Here, noting that the argument relied on an analogy made finding the correct answer—the only answer mentioning an analogy—trivial.

Incorrect. There's no suggested possible objection to the argument's overall conclusion.

Incorrect. This similarity serves the basis for an analogy that supports the conclusion about another similarity—so the statement in question is a premise, not the main point.