Logical Reasoning Answers - Ivy Global

Preptests 56 Answers and Explanations (By Ivy Global)- What’s wrong with this? We have a causation issue here. The psychologist isassuming that, because entrepreneurs are overconfident, their overconfidence iswhat caused them to become entrepreneurs. Couldn’t they have becomeoverconfident after starting a successful business? The correct answer will bridgethis gap.Answering the Questiona) The content of the questions is out of scope—we need to look at the causation issue.b) The entrepreneurs needn’t have done this. We need something that talks about theoverconfidence issue.c) This is out of scope.d) This is the correct answer. If another group showed overconfidence to be correlated withthe aspect of entrepreneurship that involves starting a business, then the argument isstrengthened.e) Business acumen is out of scope.Double-Checking the AnswerThis is the only answer choice that identifies the gap in reasoning and attempts to bridge it,thereby strengthening the argument.15. Analyzing the StimulusThe conclusion is decisive: the fourth-floor lab will be cleaned out.The evidence is certain: Agnes’s proposal requires the fourth-floor lab to be cleaned out, andImmanuel’s only requires continued use of the second-floor lab. The proposals need thedirector’s support to be approved, and the director will support both proposals.The reasoning is implicit and informal: it confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient one, andassumes that the director’s support alone (which is necessary for approval) is sufficient todetermine approval.Answering the Questiona) The size of the labs is out of scope.b) This is the correct answer. We don’t know that the director’s support is enough to assumethat the proposals will be approved—we just know that it is necessary.c) The level of enthusiasm the director gives is out of scope.d) This is not necessary to the argument, as the conclusion is only about Agnes’s lab.e) We’re told Agnes needs the fourth floor, and we have no reason not to believe that this isn’ttrue.Double-Checking the AnswerThis is the only answer that correctly identifies the flaw in the author’s reasoning.16. Analyzing the StimulusThe conclusion is decisive: offering financial incentives for giving email addresses of friends is anunethical business practice.The evidence is certain: doing so encourages people to exploit personal relationships for profit,and doing so risks damaging the integrity of the relationships.The reasoning is implicit and formal: encouraging people to damage the integrity of personalrelationships is unethical.Ivy Global