Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 2 · Question 5

Incorrect. The stimulus does mention inhaling pollen as a cause of symptoms, but that doesn't imply that anything that stops the effect does so by stopping the cause. The medicine could work by minimizing the effects on someone who does inhale pollen.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't distinguish between different types of pollen, so this answer that brings up different types is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Inhaling large amounts of pollen causes an immune response that results in allergy symptoms. There are medicines, but a more effective/often impractical solution is to stay indoors on dry, windy days.

Answer Anticipation:
The first two sentences are causal statements, which can lead to an inference. The last sentence is comparative (more effective), which can also lead to inferences. Finally, there's implied causality in the last sentence—if staying in doors is an effective strategy, then it implies that doing so removes a cause. Since the implied causality is an inference, that's likely to lead to the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This is our answer! The stimulus mentions that staying indoors is an effective strategy to minimizing allergy symptoms, and pollen is a cause of allergies. Since staying indoors isn't like medicine where it can have a biological impact, we can infer that it must minimize symptoms by removing the cause—pollen.

Key Takeaway:
In Must be True questions, causal and comparative statements (along with conditional statements) frequently lead to the answers since these types of statements can lead to inferences.

Incorrect. This answer conflates the two approaches, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. Since the stimulus never mentions air filters, this answer is out of scope.