Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. This predicts something definitively about the future, while the rules in the stimulus do not. That alone is reason enough to eliminate it. Too strong.

Incorrect. "Impossible" is also too strong. This might work with "somewhat less likely," but the level of pessimism here isn't justified by the strength of the premises.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
The more we understand an endangered species, the more likely it is we can save it. And the more individuals we study, the better we understand the species. So . . . ?

Strategy Overview:
We have two rules that both have a "the more . . . " element; combining them should allow us to get to a conclusion. Think about how the two premises affect each other, and anticipate a conclusion that tells us the effect of these two rules put together.

Answer Anticipation:
So, according to these rules, it seems like the endangered species we have the best chance of saving are those with lots of individuals to study. Conversely, if there are only 3 of a species left, it'll be hard to understand them better by studying many individuals, and that makes it harder to save them. Watch out for traps that are too strong; "the better . . . " and "the more . . . " do not carry the same force as absolute conditional statements. You don't want something like "no species with few individuals left can be saved" for instance.

Answer Explanation:
"Contributes to" and "becomes harder to get" are vague in the same way the rules are, and it's well-supported by the stimulus. If there are fewer individuals left, it'll be harder to study enough individuals to understand them better, so it will be harder to get knowledge that would make it easier to save them. This works perfectly.

Key Takeaway:
Even when the prompt is more of a traditional MBT than the softer "most strongly supported" variety, a weaker conclusion is always easier to prove than a strong one. Don't assume that just because the prompt doesn't ask for MSS it'll be a strong answer. Conclusions can be supported by premises of equal or greater strength.

Incorrect. "More important?" Nothing in the stimulus tells us about importance, only difficulty. (And how, exactly, would we save any species without taking action?)

Incorrect. This is totally unsupported by the stimulus. It could be true in the real world, but there's nothing here to suggest that it is. Out of scope, eliminate.