Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 1 · Question 24

Incorrect. Even if the dolphins would be fine living in a smaller habitat, that doesn't address whether the available habitat itself would shrink under this plan. This answer might support a conclusion that the plan won't hurt the dolphins, but not one about the actual size of the habitat.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Completion

Stimulus Summary:
Plan Ð Create building sites on land that's under 5m of water
Critics Ð The plan will reduce the size of a dolphin habitat
Conclusion Ð The critics are wrong
Concession Ð The current habitat has land on one side, and water the dolphins won't enter on all other sides
And __________.

Answer Anticipation:
While most Argument Completion questions ask us to fill in the conclusion of the argument, this one asks us to fill in the support for the conclusion that the Critics are mistaken. So we should start by rephrasing that conclusion to represent what the argument actually concludes—that the new building plan won't reduce the size of a dolphin habitat.

Looking at where the author pivots ("It is true that . . . "), we can see that there isn't actually a premise for the conclusion! The pivot statement is a concession—points that seem to align with the opposing point. Since these points would be agreed to by that opposing point, they don't support the author's conclusion.

So we're left with the background information and a conclusion to work with, so that background information must be relevant to the conclusion. Since the argument discusses the depth of water elsewhere, that 5m note will likely factor in. And since we're trying to support a conclusion that building there won't limit the dolphins' habitat, the correct answer will likely establish that dolphins don't live in water that shallow.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the dolphins' habitat can't include the area that's being developed because the dolphins wouldn't live in water so shallow. This directly undermines the critics' argument, which is the point of the stimulus, so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Note when the author makes a concession to an opposing point. In general, the author will reach a conclusion despite that information, not because of it, so it can be discounted as a premise in support of the main point of the argument. Recognizing this can drastically decrease the amount of information you have to juggle in answering a question!

Incorrect. The argument is over whether a plan would limit the habitat, not how big of a relative threat this is to the dolphins, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The average depth isn't relevant—it's the depth limits that matter. Do the dolphins live in water that's 5m deep?

Incorrect. The argument already established that the water surrounding the habitat is more than 30 meters deep, and that's already deeper than the dolphins will enter, so discussing a drop to 100 meters doesn't add anything.