Logical reasoning questions all share one shape: a short argument, then a question about the relationship between its evidence and its conclusion. No outside knowledge is involved and there is nothing to calculate. What changes from question to question is the job you are asked to do — find what the argument needs, damage it, support it, describe what is wrong with it, extract what must follow, or describe how it is built.
Those six jobs are the six sections on this page, and they matter more than the subject matter does. The people who plateau on this format are almost always reading the argument well and then answering a different question from the one asked: picking a true statement on an assumption question, or attacking the evidence when the stem asked what the argument does. Knowing which job is in front of you is most of the skill.
Every question here is original and each explanation says why the correct option is correct and why the tempting ones are not. If you would rather sit these against a clock with no feedback until you submit, the same twenty questions are set as a 20-minute paper on the logical reasoning test page.
Prefer to sit it against the clock?
The same 20 questions are set as a timed paper: 20 minutes, no feedback until you submit, then a score report with your accuracy in each of the six types.
Take the 20-minute testThe six question types
Assumption
4 questionsAn assumption question asks for something the argument needs to be true but never says out loud. The reliable test is negation: take an option, state its opposite, and feed that back into the argument. If the argument collapses, the option was a genuine assumption; if the argument survives, it was not, however helpful it sounded. The trap here is strength. Options that would clearly help the argument are easy to like, but a required assumption is usually the dullest, smallest claim available — that the two things being compared really are comparable, that no other explanation is in play, that a word means the same thing in both sentences it appears in. When two options both fit, take the weaker one.
Typical stems: “The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?” · “Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?”
Q1
The Verrick Library is moving its entire microfilm archive out of the upstairs reading room and into a climate-controlled basement store. The archive holds about twelve thousand reels, most of them local newspapers printed in the last century. The head archivist argues that the move will extend the life of the collection, because humidity in the reading room swings widely across the year, and such swings are the main cause of microfilm degradation. Nothing else about the way the film is handled or stored will change.
The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
- AMicrofilm is the most valuable material the library holds.
- BNone of the microfilm in the collection has already been damaged by humidity.
- CHumidity in the basement store will not swing as widely as it does in the reading room.
- DThe library spends more on the basement store than it does on the reading room.
- EReaders will consult the microfilm less often once it has been moved.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: C. Humidity in the basement store will not swing as widely as it does in the reading room.
🐱 Negate the humidity option and the argument collapses: if the basement swings just as widely, the move cannot extend the collection's life. That is the test of a genuine assumption. Whether microfilm is the library's most valuable holding is beside the point — the argument is about preservation, not ranking. 'None already damaged' is far stronger than the argument needs; a partly damaged collection can still be made to last longer. Relative spending is irrelevant, and how often readers consult the film says nothing about whether the move slows degradation.
Q7
Nutrition writer: In a study of four hundred households, the amount of food thrown away fell by an average of 18 percent in the year after the household installed a chest freezer. The households kept weekly diaries of everything they discarded, and each had bought its freezer at its own expense. Buying a chest freezer is therefore an effective way for a household to cut its food waste.
The writer's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
- AChest freezers use less electricity than upright freezers.
- BEvery household in the study threw away less food after installing the freezer.
- CFood waste is the largest single component of household rubbish.
- DHouseholds that already own a freezer throw away no food at all.
- EThe fall in waste was not produced by some other change the households made at the same time as installing the freezer.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: E. The fall in waste was not produced by some other change the households made at the same time as installing the freezer.
🐱 The argument reads a before-and-after drop as an effect of the freezer. If those households were also, say, planning meals or shopping differently that year, the freezer earns no credit and the recommendation fails — so ruling that out is a real requirement, not an optional extra. Electricity use is irrelevant. 'Every household' overshoots an average, which is compatible with some households wasting more. Whether food waste is the biggest part of household rubbish does not matter, and the argument never needs the absurd claim that freezer owners waste nothing.
Q13
Agronomist: In our trials, plots planted with the new cover crop lost 12 percent less soil moisture to evaporation over the dry season than bare plots did. The trials ran on twelve paired plots across two dry seasons, with soil moisture logged weekly at three depths. Since moisture is what limits yields in this region, farmers who plant the cover crop between harvests can expect higher yields.
The agronomist's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
- AThe cover crop does not take up, in its own growth, more soil moisture than it saves from evaporating.
- BEvaporation is the only way this region's soils lose moisture.
- CLeaving soil bare between harvests is the usual practice in the region.
- DThe cover crop can be sown with equipment farmers in the region already own.
- ENo other region would benefit from planting the cover crop.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: A. The cover crop does not take up, in its own growth, more soil moisture than it saves from evaporating.
🐱 The trial measured one channel only: evaporation. A living crop also drinks. If it drinks more than it shields, the soil ends the dry season drier than bare soil would have been, and the yield conclusion fails — so the argument quietly needs the balance to come out the other way. 'Evaporation is the only way soils lose moisture' is much stronger than that and is not required. What other farmers usually do, what machinery they own, and what would happen in other regions all sit outside the claim being made.
Q19
Conservation officer: Otter numbers in the Wynn have recovered steadily since the pesticide that was washing into it was banned across the valley. In neighbouring rivers, where the pesticide is still used, otter numbers have not recovered. Numbers have been surveyed on the Wynn each spring since the ban, and on three neighbouring rivers since 2019. We should extend the ban to the whole catchment so that otters there recover too.
The officer's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
- AThe pesticide brings farmers no benefit that other methods could not provide.
- BOtters are the only species harmed by the pesticide.
- COtter numbers in the Wynn have returned to their historic level.
- DWhat is holding otter numbers down in the neighbouring rivers is something the ban would remove.
- EFarmers in the catchment would stop using the pesticide even without a ban.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: D. What is holding otter numbers down in the neighbouring rivers is something the ban would remove.
🐱 The recommendation only works if the neighbouring rivers have the problem the ban actually solved. If those otters are held back by something else — weirs, road deaths, lost bankside habitat — removing the pesticide changes nothing for them, and the proposal fails. Farm economics and harm to other species are reasons one might argue about the ban, not things this argument requires. A full recovery in the Wynn is more than the officer claims, and voluntary abandonment would make the ban pointless rather than support it.
Weaken
4 questionsA weaken question asks which new fact would most damage the argument — not disprove it, just make the conclusion less likely to follow from the evidence. Find the gap before you read the options: nearly every weakenable argument takes evidence and concludes something that reaches a little further, and the answer attacks that step rather than the evidence itself. Three attacks recur so often they are worth having ready: an alternative explanation for the same data, a reason the sample or study is not representative of what the conclusion is about, and a case where the proposed cause is present but the effect is missing. The standard trap is an option that is merely bad news for whoever is speaking, or that flattens a claim the argument never actually made.
Typical stems: “Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?” · “…most calls the conclusion into question?”
Q2
Since Brantham council replaced its town-centre parking meters with a mobile payment app, revenue from town-centre parking has fallen 22 percent. The figure covers the twelve months since the change and is measured in the same way as in previous years. A council member concludes that the app is driving shoppers away from the town centre and should be scrapped, and has asked officers to price the reinstatement of the meters.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the council member's conclusion?
- AThe app charges exactly the hourly rates the old meters charged.
- BIn the same month the app launched, the council opened a free municipal car park two streets from the main shopping street.
- CThe council recovered the cost of installing the app within its first year.
- DSeveral town-centre retailers had asked the council to modernise the way parking is paid for.
- EThe meters the app replaced had been in service for more than thirty years.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: B. In the same month the app launched, the council opened a free municipal car park two streets from the main shopping street.
🐱 A free car park two streets away gives shoppers a reason to stop paying for on-street parking while still coming into town. Revenue falls without a single shopper being driven away — which is exactly the link the conclusion needs and now cannot have. Identical hourly rates rule out a price rise but say nothing about where shoppers went. Recovering the installation cost, retailers wanting modernisation, and the age of the old meters all leave the conclusion exactly where it was.
Q8
Pinewood Insurance offers a discount to drivers who fit a telematics device that reports harsh braking. Over three years, drivers with the device filed 30 percent fewer claims than drivers without one. Pinewood's analysts conclude that being monitored makes people drive more safely, and the company now plans to require the device of every policyholder. The device has been offered since 2021, and about one policyholder in six has so far fitted one.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the analysts' conclusion?
- ADrivers who chose to fit the device already had cleaner driving records, on average, than drivers who did not.
- BThe device costs Pinewood about forty pounds per driver per year to run.
- CThe discount is smaller than the premium increase that follows a claim.
- DA rival insurer offers a device that reports several behaviours besides braking.
- EHarsh braking is only one of several behaviours known to predict crash risk.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: A. Drivers who chose to fit the device already had cleaner driving records, on average, than drivers who did not.
🐱 If the safer drivers are the ones who volunteered, the gap in claims existed before any monitoring began: the device may be sorting drivers rather than changing them. That also undercuts the plan, since drivers made to fit it are the ones the pattern says least about. Running costs, the size of the discount and a rival's product have no bearing on cause. That braking is only one predictor among several would matter if the argument claimed braking data was complete — it does not; it claims monitoring changes behaviour.
Q14
Ferrow School began requiring students to hand in their phones at the start of each day; the phones are returned at the end of the day, and the rule applies to every year group. In the following term the number of disciplinary referrals recorded at the school fell by half. The head teacher credits the phone rule and has recommended it to other schools.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the head teacher's reasoning?
- AA few students found ways of handing in one phone while keeping another.
- BSome teachers found collecting and returning the phones time-consuming.
- CMost parents said they supported the new rule.
- DIn the same term, the school stopped recording lateness as a referral; lateness had previously accounted for about half of all referrals.
- EReferrals at Ferrow had been rising for three years before the rule was introduced.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: D. In the same term, the school stopped recording lateness as a referral; lateness had previously accounted for about half of all referrals.
🐱 If half the referrals simply stopped being counted, the halving is a change in the record rather than in behaviour, and the phone rule has nothing left to explain. A handful of second phones would, if anything, make the remaining drop more impressive, not less. Teachers finding the routine tiresome and parents approving of it are both silent on cause. And a three-year rise beforehand makes the sudden reversal look more like an effect of something — that option supports the head teacher rather than weakening her.
Q20
Gym owner: Our 6 a.m. classes are the least attended on the timetable. Two instructors currently cover them, and the rooms used for evening classes are not yet at capacity, so extra evening classes could be added without any other change. If we cancel the early classes and move those two instructors to the busy evening slots, total class attendance will rise.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the owner's reasoning?
- AThe 6 a.m. classes have been on the timetable for two years.
- BThe evening classes are taught by the gym's most experienced instructors.
- CAlmost all of the members who attend the 6 a.m. classes are unable to attend at any other time.
- DSeveral instructors have said they prefer working early in the morning.
- EThe gym's membership has grown by 10 percent this year.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: C. Almost all of the members who attend the 6 a.m. classes are unable to attend at any other time.
🐱 Those attendances do not move to the evening — they vanish. The gym loses the whole early head-count and gains only whatever extra the evening slots can absorb, so total attendance may well fall. How long the classes have run, who currently teaches the evenings, which hours instructors prefer and how fast membership is growing all leave the arithmetic of the plan untouched.
Strengthen
3 questionsStrengthen is weaken run backwards, and it aims at the same gap. The best answer normally rules out the alternative explanation the argument left open, or confirms that the evidence really does represent the thing the conclusion is about. Two traps come round again and again. The first is an option that restates a premise: it is perfectly consistent with the argument and adds nothing, because it was already granted. The second is an option that supports a claim standing next to the conclusion rather than the conclusion — the argument concludes something about cost and the option says something encouraging about safety. Before you commit, say the conclusion to yourself and check that the option makes that exact sentence more likely.
Typical stems: “Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?” · “…most helps to justify the conclusion?”
Q3
At the Kelso Ridge site, archaeologists recovered a cluster of grinding stones from a pit that also contained charred grain, dated to roughly nine thousand years ago. The pit lay beneath a collapsed shelter and appears not to have been disturbed since it was filled. They conclude that the people living there processed wild grain into flour, rather than simply gathering it and storing it whole.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the archaeologists' conclusion?
- AGrinding stones of similar shape have been found at sites two hundred kilometres away.
- BThe pit also held fragments of tightly woven storage baskets.
- CThe grain belongs to a species that still grows wild in the region today.
- DStarch grains matching the charred grain were found embedded in the working surfaces of the grinding stones.
- EThe site shows signs of occupation over at least four centuries.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: D. Starch grains matching the charred grain were found embedded in the working surfaces of the grinding stones.
🐱 Residue of that grain worked into the faces of the stones ties the two finds together: the stones were used on that grain, which is what 'processed' means. Without it, a pit can hold grain and stones that had nothing to do with each other. Similar stones two hundred kilometres away, a species that still grows wild, and four centuries of occupation are all equally consistent with people who only gathered and stored. Storage baskets, if anything, support the rival explanation the archaeologists are arguing against.
Q9
Transit planner: Evening ridership on the number 12 bus fell sharply after we cut its evening service from every ten minutes to every twenty. The cut was made two years ago to save money; the route's stops, its fares and its daytime frequency were all left unchanged, and evening ridership is counted automatically as passengers board. Restoring the ten-minute evening service would bring ridership back to its former level.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the planner's prediction?
- AThe number 12 route serves the city's largest hospital.
- BThe city owns enough buses to run the more frequent evening service.
- CDaytime ridership on the number 12 also fell slightly over the same period.
- DOn the number 7 route, evening ridership returned to its former level within four months of a ten-minute service being restored after a similar cut.
- EFuel prices have risen since the evening service was cut.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: D. On the number 7 route, evening ridership returned to its former level within four months of a ten-minute service being restored after a similar cut.
🐱 The prediction is not just that frequency caused the fall, but that the fall is reversible. A route where the same cut was made and then undone, with riders coming back, is direct evidence of exactly that. Serving a large hospital and rising fuel prices bear on neither point. Owning enough buses makes the plan possible but gives no reason to expect riders to return. And a fall in daytime ridership, when daytime frequency was left alone, points to some other cause of the decline — that option works against the planner, not for her.
Q15
Ornithologist: Nest boxes fixed to the north side of trunks in Ashgrove Wood fledged 30 percent more chicks than boxes on the south side. Insect abundance, measured all summer, was the same on both sides of the wood. Sixty boxes were monitored through a single breeding season, thirty on each side. I conclude that it is the cooler midday temperature inside north-facing boxes that raises fledging success.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the ornithologist's conclusion?
- AThe north-facing boxes were on average slightly older than the south-facing ones.
- BEvery box in the study was fixed at the same height above the ground.
- CIn an unusually cool summer, when midday temperatures inside south-facing boxes stayed within the range recorded in north-facing ones, the gap in fledging success almost disappeared.
- DThe wood contains both oak and beech trees.
- EFledging success across the whole wood was higher this year than last.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: C. In an unusually cool summer, when midday temperatures inside south-facing boxes stayed within the range recorded in north-facing ones, the gap in fledging success almost disappeared.
🐱 Take the temperature difference away and the fledging difference goes with it. That is the pattern you would expect if temperature is doing the work, and it is hard to explain if something else is. Equal mounting heights and a mixture of tree species rule nothing in — they are background details. A wood-wide rise from one year to the next says nothing about north versus south. Older boxes on the north side would be a rival explanation for the gap, so that option pulls against the conclusion.
Flawed reasoning
3 questionsFlaw questions ask you to describe what went wrong, in the test's abstract vocabulary rather than your own. That makes it two jobs, not one: see the gap, then recognise it wearing a phrase like “takes for granted that” or “treats a condition sufficient for a result as necessary for it”. Name the gap in your own words before reading a single option, or the abstract phrasing will make three of them sound plausible. Then run each candidate through two checks. Accuracy: does the argument actually do this? If an option mentions a sample and there is no sample, it is out. Relevance: is this the reason the support fails? Options describing a real but harmless feature of the argument die on the second check.
Typical stems: “The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” · “The argument is flawed in that it…”
Q4
A fitness magazine invited its readers to fill in an online survey about exercise. Of the readers who replied, 78 percent said they exercise at least four times a week. The survey ran for six weeks and drew just over four thousand replies. The magazine's editor, describing that as an unusually large sample, concluded that most people in the country now exercise at least four times a week.
The editor's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- Atreats people who read a fitness magazine and chose to reply as representative of the country as a whole
- Bassumes without argument that exercising four times a week is good for people
- Cmistakes an effect for its cause
- Ddraws a conclusion about the present from evidence about the past
- Etreats a percentage as though it were a raw number
▶Show the explanation
Answer: A. treats people who read a fitness magazine and chose to reply as representative of the country as a whole
🐱 Two filters sit between the sample and the country: the respondents already read a fitness magazine, and they then chose to answer a survey about exercise. Both push the figure up, so 78 percent of that group tells you almost nothing about everyone else. Whether exercise is good is not in dispute and plays no part in the inference. Nothing in the argument is described as causing anything, and nothing is about the past. The editor also uses the percentage correctly as a percentage — the sample is the problem, not the arithmetic.
Q10
Support manager: After we introduced the new ticketing system, our team's average first-response time improved from nine hours to five. Over the same period our customer satisfaction score did not move at all. The score comes from the same monthly survey we have always used, sent to the same number of customers. Clearly our customers do not care how quickly we respond.
The manager's reasoning is flawed because it
- Aassumes that the new ticketing system was what made responses faster
- Btreats an average as though it described every individual case
- Coverlooks the possibility that other things affecting satisfaction got worse over the same period
- Ddraws a conclusion about all customers from the experience of a single team
- Econfuses customer satisfaction with customer loyalty
▶Show the explanation
Answer: C. overlooks the possibility that other things affecting satisfaction got worse over the same period
🐱 A flat score is perfectly consistent with faster replies pushing satisfaction up while something else — pricing, outages, a bad release — pulled it down by about as much. Until that is ruled out, 'customers do not care' does not follow from 'the number did not move'. What caused the speed-up is irrelevant to the conclusion, since the speed-up is agreed. The average is used correctly. The customers rating the service are the ones this team serves, so there is no leap from one team to all customers, and loyalty is never mentioned.
Q16
Editor: We published 140 articles last year, and every one of the 22 that ran over two thousand words drew above-average reader engagement. Our writers currently choose their own length, and the shorter pieces were spread right across the range from four hundred words upwards. To raise engagement this year, we should require every article to run over two thousand words.
The editor's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- Afails to specify how reader engagement is measured
- Bassumes that padding an article out to two thousand words would give it whatever made the long articles engaging
- Ctakes above-average engagement to be desirable without arguing for it
- Dgeneralises from a single year to every year
- Econfuses an average with a total
▶Show the explanation
Answer: B. assumes that padding an article out to two thousand words would give it whatever made the long articles engaging
🐱 Last year's long articles were long because their subjects earned the length — reporting, depth, complexity. A word-count rule reproduces the length and none of that, so a pattern found among articles that grew long naturally gives no reason to expect the same from articles stretched to order. Leaving 'engagement' undefined is untidy but is not what breaks the inference. Wanting above-average engagement is an ordinary editorial goal, not a hidden premise. One year is all the data there is, and the argument does not claim otherwise. No average is treated as a total.
Inference
3 questionsInference questions invert the usual direction. Instead of judging an argument you are handed a set of facts and asked what follows from them, so there is no gap to attack and nothing outside the passage counts. “Must be true” is strict: an option that is merely likely, or that sits comfortably alongside the passage, is wrong. The most productive move is to combine two statements that share a term, because the answer is often the link the passage set up but never wrote down. Watch the quantifiers, which do not convert into one another — “most A are B” plus “most A are C” guarantees only that at least one B is a C. The classic trap is an option that overshoots the evidence by a single word: *all* where the passage said *most*, *because* where it said *and*.
Typical stems: “Which one of the following must also be true?” · “Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above?”
Q5
Every employee at Hallam Freight who holds a Class B licence is also trained in hazardous-materials handling. Nobody who works in the dispatch office holds a Class B licence. All of the company's night-shift drivers hold a Class B licence. The company employs one hundred and eighty people in total across its depot, its dispatch office and its driving rotas, and every licence held by an employee is recorded centrally and reviewed each January.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?
- ANobody in the dispatch office is trained in hazardous-materials handling.
- BEveryone at Hallam Freight who is trained in hazardous-materials handling holds a Class B licence.
- CEvery night-shift driver at Hallam Freight is trained in hazardous-materials handling.
- DAll hazardous-materials training at Hallam Freight takes place on the night shift.
- EAt least one dispatch office employee has applied for a Class B licence.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: C. Every night-shift driver at Hallam Freight is trained in hazardous-materials handling.
🐱 Night-shift drivers all hold Class B, and everyone holding Class B is hazmat-trained, so the two statements chain together and the conclusion is forced. Dispatch staff lack Class B, but nothing says Class B is the only route to the training, so they may well be trained. 'Everyone trained holds Class B' reverses the first sentence — that direction was never asserted. When training takes place is not mentioned at all, and nothing whatsoever is said about anyone applying for a licence.
Q11
All of the pottery recovered from the lower level of the Marden excavation is glazed. None of the glazed pottery found anywhere at Marden bears a maker's mark. Some of the pottery from the upper level bears a maker's mark. The excavation ran for three seasons; every piece recovered was catalogued by level as it came out of the ground, and no piece was assigned to more than one level.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?
- ANone of the pottery from the upper level is glazed.
- BSome of the pottery from the upper level is not glazed.
- CEvery piece of unglazed pottery at Marden comes from the upper level.
- DThe pottery from the lower level is older than the pottery from the upper level.
- EMost of the pottery found at Marden is glazed.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: B. Some of the pottery from the upper level is not glazed.
🐱 Some upper-level pieces carry a maker's mark; no glazed piece at the site carries one; so those marked pieces cannot be glazed. 'Some of the upper level is not glazed' is exactly as much as that licenses. 'None is glazed' overreaches — the unmarked pieces from that level may be glazed. Nothing rules out unglazed pottery elsewhere at the site, nothing in the passage dates one level against the other, and no counts are given, so 'most' has no support at all.
Q17
Municipal rule: a building may be listed as historic only if it is at least eighty years old and retains its original façade. The Corley Mill, completed in 1994, retains its original façade. The Ashby Warehouse was built in 1901 and has had its façade replaced twice. Listing brings a maintenance grant and restricts what an owner may alter, and the council reviews applications twice a year.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?
- AAny building at least eighty years old that retains its original façade is listed as historic.
- BThe Corley Mill will be listed as historic in 2074.
- CThe Ashby Warehouse would be listed as historic if its original façade were restored.
- DThe Corley Mill is the older of the two buildings.
- ENeither the Corley Mill nor the Ashby Warehouse can currently be listed as historic.
▶Show the explanation
Answer: E. Neither the Corley Mill nor the Ashby Warehouse can currently be listed as historic.
🐱 'Only if' states two requirements, not a guarantee. The Corley Mill fails the age requirement and the Ashby Warehouse fails the façade requirement, so neither is currently eligible — that much is forced by the rule. The other options all read the requirements as sufficient: meeting them does not entitle a building to be listed, so neither the general claim nor the 2074 prediction follows, and a rebuilt façade would not be the original one in any case. On dates, the Ashby Warehouse is the older building by almost a century.
Method of argument
3 questionsMethod-of-argument questions ask what the argument does, not whether it works — a bad argument can still be described correctly. The answer is a description of structure: it draws an analogy, it establishes a general principle and applies it to a particular case, it undermines a claim by showing that its consequences are absurd. Subject matter is a distraction, and options that summarise the topic accurately can still be the wrong shape. What pays is stripping the argument to roles before you read the options: mark the conclusion, mark what supports it, and note whether anything is there to represent a view the author is arguing against. Then find the option whose verbs match those roles. The usual trap describes a step the argument never took — a counterexample it never gave, an authority it never cited.
Typical stems: “The argument proceeds by…” · “Which one of the following describes the technique used in the argument?”
Q6
Critic: The new bridge design should be rejected, because it has never been used for a span this long.
Engineer: Every bridge design was untested once, including the cantilever design that now carries a million vehicles a day across the harbour. If never having been tried were a reason to reject a design, we would still be building nothing but stone arches.
The engineer responds to the critic by
- Apresenting statistical evidence that the new design is safe
- Bshowing that the critic's principle, applied consistently, would rule out designs the critic accepts
- Cquestioning whether the critic is qualified to judge bridge designs
- Dconceding the critic's objection but arguing that the benefits outweigh it
- Epointing out that the critic has described the new design inaccurately
▶Show the explanation
Answer: B. showing that the critic's principle, applied consistently, would rule out designs the critic accepts
🐱 The engineer takes the critic's own rule — reject anything without precedent — and follows it to a place the critic will not go: the harbour cantilever, which plainly is accepted, would have been rejected too. That is an attack on the principle, which is why the 'not qualified' option misreads it as an attack on the person. No numbers are offered, nothing is conceded, and the design itself is never said to have been described wrongly.
Q12
Columnist: Supporters of the harbour redevelopment say it will create two thousand jobs. The same consultancy forecast three thousand jobs for the airport expansion, and only nine hundred appeared. The harbour report runs to ninety pages and uses the same modelling approach the consultancy applied to the airport. Until that gap has been explained, the harbour figure should not be treated as reliable.
The columnist's argument proceeds by
- Ashowing that the harbour forecast rests on a definition of 'job' that is too broad
- Barguing that the redevelopment would do more harm than good
- Coffering an alternative and lower estimate of the number of jobs
- Dclaiming that the supporters stand to profit personally from the project
- Equestioning a forecast on the strength of its source's record on a comparable forecast
▶Show the explanation
Answer: E. questioning a forecast on the strength of its source's record on a comparable forecast
🐱 The columnist never touches the harbour numbers themselves. The entire case is that this forecaster was badly wrong last time on a similar job, so this forecast has not yet earned trust — a challenge to the source's reliability, not to the calculation. No definition is disputed, no rival estimate is put forward, and no claim is made about harm. The 'profit personally' option describes an attack on the supporters' motives, which is a different move and one the columnist does not make.
Q18
Economist A: Raising the city's minimum wage will reduce employment among young workers.
Economist B: When Ridgeport raised its minimum wage by 12 percent in 2019, youth employment there rose by 3 percent over the following twelve months.
Economist A: Ridgeport's economy grew 4 percent that year, its fastest rate in a decade. The question is not whether youth employment rose, but whether it rose by less than it otherwise would have.
Economist A responds to B's counterexample by
- Aarguing that B's evidence does not separate the effect of the wage rise from other influences on employment
- Bdisputing the accuracy of the Ridgeport employment figures
- Coffering a counterexample of A's own
- Dnarrowing the original claim so that it applies to a smaller group of workers
- Egranting B's point while arguing that it matters less than B supposes
▶Show the explanation
Answer: A. arguing that B's evidence does not separate the effect of the wage rise from other influences on employment
🐱 A does not deny that youth employment rose. A points out that a fast-growing economy was pushing it up at the same time, so the raw figure cannot show what the wage rise did on its own — the comparison needed is with what would have happened otherwise. The figures are accepted rather than disputed, no second example is produced, and the claim about young workers is left exactly as broad as it began. Nor is anything conceded about the wage rise's effect; only the direction of the headline number is granted.