Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 3 · Question 19

Incorrect. This answer can seem tempting at first, but note the end of the answer—"another, presumably flawed, piece of reasoning." The Professor thinks that both arguments here are valid, not flawed. There might be an implied opposing point that the Professor believes is flawed, but she doesn't compare a piece of reasoning to the flawed reasoning.

Incorrect. The argument relies on comparing two situations with similar premises/conclusions, not highlighting a situation where the opposite conclusion would lead to absurdity. That would be an argument featuring reality defined by someone's perspective.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Your view of your environment is skewed by your perspective, so similarly art history books aren't accurate because they are skewed by the perspective of the author.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument reaches its conclusion by using an analogous argument where the conclusion seems more obvious. Arguing by analogy is a common method of reasoning in this question type, and this is question #19, so we should be expecting some difficult language in the answer choices since the stimulus itself featured a common reasoning type!

Answer Explanation:
The Professor introduces an argument that is presumably cogent—you can't get a full view of your environment from a single momentary perception. Using that as an analogous situation, she reaches a similar conclusion in another argument. This answer reflects the Professor's method of reasoning, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a question later on in the LR section has a stimulus that falls into a common pattern (thus making it easier to spot the logic of it), expect difficult answers!

Incorrect. It's unclear what group of characteristics this answer would be talking about, so we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't bring up two analogous situations that feature the same type of human cognition. One is about perception of the environment; the other is about biases and prejudices that would affect a view of history.