PT115.S4.Q26

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23

PASSAGE 4

Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

(A) presents a clean false dichotomy between pepperoni and cheese pizza. If (D) didn't exist, (A) would be right.

But (A) is less akin to the stimulus than (D) is for a few reasons. The first is the "up, down, constant" dynamic – both the stimulus and (D) present a false dichotomy that acts as though up and down (like, those two exact concepts in particular) are the only options, when in reality staying the same (again, that exact concept) is another option.

(A)'s false dichotomy also overlooks way more than one option. Whereas the stimulus just overlooks "stays constant" as option #3, in (A) Raoul could have olive pizza, or pineapple pizza, or broccoli pizza, or vegan pizza, or…

Although (B) compares two concepts that don't form a dichotomy (a theory could be disproved, proved, or remain unknown), (B) doesn't act like there's a dichotomy. Simply saying one thing is more likely than another doesn't assume nothing else exists.

If I say "I am more likely to get into community college than Yale," I'm not assuming no other schools exist.

There's also the problem of likelihood – whereas the stimulus' conclusion is certain, (B)'s conclusion is probabilistic.

(C) would be correct if not for the word "may" in its conclusion, which is a likelihood mismatch with the stimulus' certain conclusion.

(C) does assume "harmony up" and (basically) "harmony down" are the only options when "harmony constant" is also an option, but it concludes that "harmony down" is possible rather than definite. The stimulus says the quality of education "will surely deteriorate."

That's a subtle distinction, but it's also a very common one. If you picked (C), the takeaway is a piece of metagame strategy: in parallel (and parallel flaw) questions, answer choices are very often wrong for likelihood (can, likely, will) and quantity (some, most, all) reasons.

(E) presents valid logic: something is impossible, therefore it will not happen.