Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 2 · Question 10

Incorrect. This answer makes it seem as if humans are actively antagonizing these birds, which doesn't explain how they thrive in areas with humans.

Incorrect. This answer might explain why the birds would be affected less than other animals, since they live in areas with fewer humans, but it doesn't explain why they flourish in these areas. And it also suggests that other animals living in the prairies should similarly don't follow the usual pattern, which we have no evidence of.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this answer might explain why the birds aren't negatively affected in the way other animals are, but it doesn't explain why they're thriving in areas with humans.

Incorrect. What does this have to do with the Mississippi kite? Nothing! This answer is wholly out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Usual pattern - Wildlife is endangered when humans move in
Mississippi kite (bird) - This bird flourishes in areas with people

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus brings up an exception to a general rule, or an outlier. In order to explain this, we need to know something different about the Mississippi kite that allows it to thrive when humans are around, likely connecting it to something that's different about areas with humans than areas without them.

Answer Explanation:
This answer explains something about the Mississippi kite that is different and would allow a difference in areas with humans to allow for them to thrive. If human habitation results in denser tree cover, and denser tree cover protects kites' nests/eggs, then it makes sense that they'd thrive in areas where humans live, as their offspring are more likely to survive the hail and wind.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that feature exceptions or outliers are inherently comparative—there must be something different about these exceptions/outliers to explain why they don't follow the general rule.