Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 1 · Question 5

Incorrect. An answer like this can be tempting, as you start to try to fit the information in the stimulus into a conditional framework and start thinking that a premise is necessary for the conclusion, but it's treated as sufficient. Don't go down that route. This answer will be wrong when there isn't conditional language. The argument doesn't establish anything as necessary or sufficient for the condition to hold, so this answer is wrong.

Incorrect. Other, stronger associations don't undermine the connection between taste and healthfulness.

Incorrect. Even if some bitter foods are nutritious when cooked, others are poisonous, so taste being used to determine poison would still be a useful tool.

Incorrect. No matter the range of foods, if the associations between sweet, salty, sour, and bitter hold up, then the argument can work.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Early humans used taste to determine healthfulness, so our ability to distinguish these flavors is completely explained by this use.

Answer Anticipation:
"[C]ompletely explained"? That's a very strong conclusion. Sure, the premises establish that determining healthfulness might be one reason humans developed the ability to sense these flavors, but there's no premise strong enough to establish that it's a complete explanation. Let's find an answer that highlights that degree shift.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion states that the human ability to distinguish these tastes is "completely" determined by the ability to use taste as a proxy for healthfulness. However, it only establishes that it's one possible explanation for it. While it may serve as a partial explanation, nothing in the premises justifies the strength of the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a conclusion throws strong words around, check the premises to see if any are strong enough to justify that language. If not, you've found your flaw.