Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 2 · Question 22

Incorrect. This answer describes a premise for the intermediate conclusion—in other words, it describes the "Since" statement.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Scientists - Astrology is garbage
Astrologer - Science can't distinguish personality types, so science can't be used to disprove a correlation between personality and other things, and so the scientists' claim about astrology is unjustified.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts with "Although some scientists . . . " which strongly suggest that an opposing point is being introduced ("some scientists") that the Astrologer is going to immediately disagree with ("Although"). And the pivot is to the Astrologer's opinion of the opposing point, so this is almost certainly the main point.

The following statement starts with a "Since," showing that it's a premise in support of a conclusion that's going to show up in the second half of the sentence, and that conclusion is the statement in question.

Our last step is to determine which of the two statements we identified as conclusions is the main point, and which one is the intermediate conclusion. Looking at the two, the statement in question supports the Astrologer's opinion on the scientists' claim. That scientific studies can't be used to disprove a correlation between personality and other phenomena supports her conclusion that their claim that there's no correlation between personality and astrological sign is unjustified. So the statement in question is the intermediate conclusion of the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This is the generic intermediate conclusion answer choice, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
Argument Structure questions that show up later in the section usually have more complex or convoluted argument structures. And that frequently means an intermediate conclusion. Be sure to check all conclusions you find to see which support others to know if you're dealing with a main point or intermediate conclusion.

Incorrect. The Astrologer's opinion of the opposing point is the main point of the argument, supported by the statement in question.

Incorrect. Logically, the statement in question supports the Astrologer's conclusion. Structurally, it can't be an opposing point because it is supported by a "Since" statement that immediately follows the main point.

Incorrect. The statement in question is actually a general principle that the Astrologer invokes in a specific case, so this answer is essentially the opposite of a correct answer.