PrepTest 144

Incorrect. The specific situation involves the telltale abnormalities from elevated hormonal activity, so abnormalities from other causes are out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Industrial by-products cause elevated hormonal activity
Certain reptile abnormalities → Elevated hormonal activity
Alligators were found with these abnormalities
Therefore - industrial by-products are in the alligator ecosystem

Answer Anticipation:
For an opening question, there's quite a bit going on! There's both a causal and a conditional statement, followed by a specific situation that the argument tries to apply both to.

Since the causal statement is a premise, the argument is unlikely to have a correlation/causation flaw. However, there is a conditional statement, so we can consider an illegal reversal or negation.

That conditional establishes elevated hormonal activity as a necessary condition ("only with") for the telltale abnormalities. The alligators that the argument applies this information to did have the abnormalities, so there's no illegal reversal/negation here—the conditional does apply and lets us infer that the gators had elevated hormonal activity.

However, the argument errs in concluding that industrial by-products are definitely present in this environment. While they do cause elevated hormonal activity, there's no indication that they're the only thing that can cause that elevated activity. In treating a cause of an effect as if it were the only cause, this argument commits an error in reasoning that the correct answer should point out.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the stimulus treats one potential cause (industrial by-products) of something (elevated hormonal activity) as the only potential cause of it, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
This is a much harder first question than we're used to seeing—good thing it wasn't section 1! That said, it still dealt with common issues—causal and conditional statements—and so we had all the tools we needed to tackle it.

Incorrect. That would still be a part of their ecosystem, so it's a consideration that falls within the argument's conclusion.

Incorrect. Whether or not there were other affected reptiles, the alligators did show the abnormalities that establish they had elevated hormonal activity—other reptiles are unnecessary to prove that.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't need to establish that all the gators in this ecosystem were affected to establish that there is something causing abnormal hormonal activity—just that some were affected. There's no sampling flaw here.