PT8.S2.Q14

SECTION 1 · 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

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 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

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

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

(A) is wrong because its second premise simply reverses its first premise rather than creating a conditional chain linking to a new concept. Whereas the stimulus goes from recession to demand to interest, (A) goes from restaurant to parking and then back to restaurant.

P1: Restaurant → Parking
P2: Parking → Restaurant
________
C: /Parking → /Restaurant

(A)’s conclusion is just the contrapositive of premise 1.

Practically, you should eliminate (C) because you notice it only has two claims to the stimulus’ three.

(C) presents a premise (if pterodactyls flapped, they were warm-blooded), then a conclusion that’s simply the contrapositive of that premise with slightly different wording (if they were cold-blooded, they must have glided). Translated into formal logic, that’s:

P1: Flap → Warm
________
P2: /Warm → /Flap

“If they flew at all” adds a weird complication we fortunately don’t need to get into, because it’s enough to note that the stimulus doesn’t feature a similar clause.

(D) is most noticeably wrong because the conclusion doesn't contain a contrapositive.

That’s the main thing, but there’s also a minor distinction between not having enough material to make the top and not being able to make the top. Maybe you can get supplemental material from elsewhere.

(E)’s premises do form a conditional chain, but its conclusion confuses necessity for sufficiency, resulting in a claim that’s reversed compared to the valid conclusion.

P1: Forecasters → Inflation
P2: Inflation → Lose
________
(Valid C: Forecasters → Lose)
Actual C: Lose → Forecasters