Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 2 · Question 7

Incorrect. While this might explain why fake amber is relatively common, it does nothing to establish how rare the real stuff is, so this doesn't strengthen the comparison between real and fake amber.

Incorrect. The size of the amber is completely out of scope of this argument, as it's not noted as being related to value or authenticity.

Incorrect. This answer might suggest that forgers would be more likely to create fake amber with insects than plants, but it doesn't speak to the frequency relative to real amber. Just because something is more frequent than something else doesn't mean it's particularly common or more frequent than a separate thing.

Incorrect. The difficulty of distinguishing between the two types of amber is out of scope, and there's no indication that destroying a part of a sample is a big deal, so this answer is completely out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
(Cue Jurassic Park theme song)

Amber is valuable when it has fossilized remains in it. Forgers can embed normal-looking insects in fake amber. Therefore, amber with normal-looking insects is much more likely to be fake than amber not containing them.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument reaches a comparative conclusion—amber with normal-looking insects is far more likely to be fake than amber without such insects. Why? Because forgers can embed normal-looking insects in fake amber.

When drawing a comparative conclusion, in general, the argument needs to establish three things: 1) the criteria for the comparison; 2) that criteria in the first thing being compared; 3) that criteria in the second thing being compared. Here, the stimulus does the first two—it establishes the criteria (normal-looking insects in amber) and how it relates to fake amber (it frequently has these insects in it), but it fails to discuss real amber and the presence of normal-looking insects.

We know that real amber does sometimes include fossilized life, but we have no idea of the frequency of it including normal-looking insects. As such, it's impossible to determine how frequently it happens compared to the forged stuff. Any answer that suggests normal-looking insects are relatively rarely found in real amber will strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that amber containing normal-looking insects is relatively rare—most amber with insects has them non-normal-looking. Since this speaks to the infrequency of real amber with normal-looking insects, it supports the argument that it's less frequent than fake amber with normal-looking insects.

Key Takeaway:
Comparative conclusions require the argument to establish the criteria for the comparison and then actually discuss that criteria for all elements involved in the concluded comparison. Short any of these pieces, the argument is flawed, and the correct answer will probably address that missing piece.