Since Support the zoo has more animals than enclosures, and Support every animal lives in an enclosure, it must be true that Conclusion at least one of the enclosures contains more than one animal.
The argument concludes that at least one zoo enclosure must contain multiple animals. How do we know? Because there are fewer enclosures than there are animals. And every animal still lives in an enclosure.
The answer we're looking for will match the abstract form of the stimulus. It should include two premises: (1) the number of objects is greater than the number of containers, and (2) every object is in a container. It should then validly conclude that at least one container contains more than one object. A mismatch with any element makes an answer choice incorrect.
The argument above exhibits a ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
Every person has ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ █████████
The conclusion of (A) doesn't match with the stimulus. We're looking for a conclusion that there must be some containers (pairs of parents) containing multiple objects (children). (A) instead compares the number of parents and children in a given group.
Since every year █████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████████
(B) is missing an essential element of the stimulus: a second premise. We want an argument with two premises and a conclusion; (B) only has one premise and a conclusion. That's enough to eliminate.
Even if it weren't, the content of (B)'s argument doesn't match the stimulus. The stimulus is discussing objects in containers, whereas (B) straightforwardly compares the frequency of two types of events.
Since boys under ███ ████████ █████████ █████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ████
(C) compares the number of two different types of objects (boys and girls) within a single type of container (families). The stimulus, on the other hand, discusses a single type of object (animals). That lets us eliminate (C).
If that's not enough, (C) is also not a valid argument, unlike the stimulus. (C)'s conclusion is just one way to reconcile the premises. But it could also be the case that no girls under 10 have multiple brothers under 10, and there are just some large all-brother families.
At least one ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ █ ███████
(D) starts with a matching conclusion: some containers (families) contain multiple objects (children). It proceeds with two premises. First, there are more objects than there are containers. Second, every object is in a container. This perfectly matches the elements of the stimulus.
There must be █████ ████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████
(E) resembles the stimulus, but gets the reasoning backward. Instead of concluding that at least one container (family) contains multiple objects (teenagers), it takes that claim as a premise. Its conclusion, that the number of objects must exceed the number of containers, matches one of the stimulus' premises. That's a different pattern of reasoning.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.