Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 4 · Question 16

Incorrect. First, it's not a counterexample (or an example at all, really). Second, it doesn't support the paleobioligists's view, which would be the "side" of the debate it would need to be on to serve as a potential counterexample to the main conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð Dinos lack a structure that warm-blooded animals have
Some paleobiologists Ð This implies dinos were cold-blooded
Counterpoint Ð Dinos lived in Australia and Alaska, where only warm-blooded animals could survive the freezing temps
Conclusion Ð Not all dinos were cold-blooded

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has great structure to it, making our anticipation a lot easier.

The opening statement defines a term and describes its function, so it's almost certainly background. The following statement is the implication that "some paleobiologists" take from this background, so that's almost certainly the opposing point.

The Researcher then pivots ("however") to her opinion on that opposing point, which is almost certainly the conclusion. That's followed up by why she believes they're wrong ("for" introduces a premise). The final statement doesn't have any clear indicators, but it's a fact that, when applied to the previous statement, supports the conclusion. So this statement in question is a premise supporting the main point.

Answer Explanation:
It is a premise that, when added to the premise that dinos lived in areas with freezing temperatures, implies that dinosaurs couldn't all have been cold-blooded, supporting the conclusion that those who say they were are wrong.

Key Takeaway:
Lean on structural keywords in Argument Structure questions! Their sole purpose is to make it easier for humans to communicate arguments, so use them for that purpose!

Incorrect. Dinosaurs lacking turbinates is background, accepted by both sides of the debate. They disagree over the implications of it—whether it means they were cold-blooded or not. But there's no counterevidence to that initial background statement.

Incorrect. The statement is a premise supporting the main point. There's no support offered for that statement, and it's factual—both signs it's a premise.

Incorrect. The preceding statement doesn't support it—it's about one type of animal that is not definitively cold- or warm-blooded. The two statements build together to support the main conclusion.