Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 2 · Question 2

Incorrect. A child's tomb could still include a religious object.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme. While the argument requires that earthenware figures were sometimes not used as children's toys, it doesn't need them to never have been used as such.

Incorrect. The tomb could have been reentered before the archaeologists found it with the tomb robbers leaving the figuring alone, so it's not a requirement that this is true. At best, it would strengthen an argument that the hippo was placed in the tomb already broken.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - An earthenware hippo resembling a child's toy was found in a tomb upside-down with its legs broken off
Context - Ancient Egyptians believed the dead fought beasts, and they used figurines to help them win
Explanation - This hippo wasn't a toy, but rather a religious object

Answer Anticipation:
We've got a phenomenon/explanation passage, which should always lead us to think about alternative explanations. Here, the concluded explanation is that the object was a religious object, but it brings up an alternative itself! That alternative? It was a child's toy.

Why does the argument conclude it was a religious object rather than a toy? The background the Curator establishes shows that there's one detail pointing in that direction—the broken-off legs, suggesting it was meant to represent victory in the eternal war against beasts after death. So for this argument to work, those broken legs have to point at it being a religious object instead of a toy, or any other explanation for the function of the object.

Let's dig into any answer directly dealing with those broken legs.

Answer Explanation:
Unlike (C), this answer directly addresses the broken legs, which were used to eliminate the alternative explanation—that it was a toy. If the legs were broken through some natural occurrence, then the support for it being a religious object (the figure as a means of helping the dead wage eternal war against beasts) falls apart. This answer is required for the argument to hold together, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions ask us to find an answer that's required for the argument to hold together, not for the conclusion to be true. As such, you should make sure that the answer you select deals with the premises offered in support of the conclusion, and not just the conclusion itself.

Incorrect. The relevant fact, based on the Curator's explanation of Egyptian tradition, is that the legs were broken off, not that it was on its back, so this isn't required for the argument to hold together.