Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 2 · Question 7

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require the puppies to be useless—just to not go hunting. It's possible that the puppies would have been helpful, but they were left behind for safety reasons. This answer isn't required.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer weakens the argument by suggesting an alternative reason for the relative lack of puppy fossils. An answer that weakens an argument can't be necessary for that argument to work.

Incorrect. Out of scope. The frequency of dire wolves being trapped over other animals isn't relevant to an argument about adult dire wolves vs. puppies.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Lots of dire wolf fossils have been found in tar pits, but none are from puppies. Therefore, the puppies probably didn't help scavenge or hunt.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion brings up scavenging and hunting, but the premises don't. We need to connect that idea to the premises, which are mainly about fossils in tar pits. Let's find an answer that connects those two concepts.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects hunting/scavenging to getting caught in tar pits. If those two aren't connected, then the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
When a new concept is brought up in an Assumption question, look for an answer that connects that concept to an idea from the premises.

Incorrect. This answer connects tar pits and hunting/scavenging, but it goes wrong when it says that these areas were a favorite. The tar pits don't need to be a favorite hunting location to trap a lot of dire wolves—maybe it was just a location near the top of the list.