LSAT

PrepTest 3
Explained
a guide to the december, 1991 exam
  2006 Kaplan, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, xerography, or any other
means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of
Kaplan, Inc. LSAT is a registered trademark of the Law School Admission Council.

SECTION I:
LOGIC GAMES
Game 1: Three Couples At Dinner
Questions 1–7
The Action: We can tell from the first three sentences
that the first game is a matching game; we’re given 6
people (3 couples—John and Kate, Lewis and Marie,
and Nat and Olive), and are asked to match each to
one par ticular entree (pork chops, roast beef,
swordfish, tilefish, or veal cutlet). Notice that with 5
entrees and 6 people, there has to be some
duplication of entrees. The Key Issues are basic:
1) Who orders what entree?
2) Who can, must, or cannot order the same entree as
whom?
The Initial Setup: To sketch the information, simply
write J, K, L, M, N, and O across the top of the page
with double lines between K and L, and M and N, in
order to visually break the 6 people into their
respective couples. If you wish, you can also
distinguish between men and women, by writing tone
group in capital letters, and the other in lowercase. Add
in the list of the entrees off to the side, and you should
have something like this to begin with:
PRSTV JK LM NO
The Rules:
Start with the two most concrete rules, Rules 3 and 5.
3) An “S” under Marie will remind us that she opted for
the swordfish.
5) “R” under Olive means that it’s roast beef for her.
1) This rule adds a nice touch—it allows the man and
woman in each couple to share. One easy way to
remember this is to write a “≠” between the members
of each couple.
2) You could write “men never order the same,” but
you’re always better off being more specific: J≠L≠N.
4) No fish for John or Nat, which means that swordfish
and tilefish are out for them. But there are only five
entrees to begin with, which means that these two
guys are restricted to either pork chops, roast beef, or
the veal. Indicate that somewhere in your sketch.
Section I: Logic Games
Key Deductions: and we have “NO R B” under Nat to
indicate that he wants something different than his
date, Olive. Our work with combining Rules 2 and 4 will
prove quite useful. We should also include Rule 1 in
our considerations.
Since Olive, Nat’s better half, orders roast beef (Rule
5), Nat can’t, and Nat’s choices were limited to begin
with (Rule 4). Therefore, Nat must order either pork
chops or veal cutlet. We can also deduce that Lewis
won’t order swordfish since he won’t duplicate Marie’s
choice. Notice that while we have definite choices for
two out of the three women, we also have lots of
information on the men, especially Nat. Once you get
the setup to this point, you can bet that more than a
couple of answers will spring from John and Nat running
out of entrees to order thanks to Rules 1 and 2.
The Final Visualization: Here’s what we have before
moving on to the questions:
P/R/V No S P or V
PRSTV J=K L=M N=O
MEN NOT SAME S R
J=L=N
The Big Picture:
• If rules are given to you in the negative, turn them
around to the positive. The fact that John and Nat
don’t order swordfish or tilefish is not nearly as
useful as deducing that they MUST order one of
the remaining entrees; pork chops, roast beef, or
veal cutlet.
• Always think actively. Flagging potential major
rules and thinking through possibilities are just
two techniques that can really save time and aid
in conquering the lion’s share of the questions.
• Work with the most concrete rules first; anything
that can go into the sketch immediately will help
to lay the groundwork for the rest of the Final
Visualization. But once they’re incorporated
(Rules 3, 4, and 5 are now built into the
visualization above), turn your attention to the
rules that will most likely govern the rest of the
game, which in this case are Rules 1 and 2.
1
PrepTest 3 Explained

The Questions: 7. (D)

Deal with rule changes first. Since Marie has
1. (D)
swordfish, now so does Lewis. Olive has roast beef;
We deduced that Lewis will not order swordfish since now, so does Nat. Rule 2 is still in effect, so John is
Marie, his date, orders it. However, there’s nothing that left with a choice of pork chops and veal cutlet, which
prevents him from ordering any of the other entrees, so means that Kate is limited to the same. They both can
the other four must be included in the list. opt for the pork chops, so (D) can be true.
(A), (B), (C), and (E) are impossible.
2. (B)
Not much to do but check out each choice. (A) is
knocked out by a combination of Rules 3 and 4. (C)
violates Rule 2. Rules 1 and 5, taken together, signify
that (D) can’t be true, and Rule 1 by itself makes (E)
impossible. That leaves (B); Kate would have to order
either pork chops or veal cutlet, because that’s all Nat
can eat, but that’s eminently feasible.

3. (A)
Here’s our Big Deduction: Nat has to order either pork
chops or veal cutlet, and choice (A) therefore must be
a true statement. (B) and (C) are impossible, while (D)
could be true, but need not be (Lewis could order
tilefish) and (E) merely could be true as well, but would
be false if Kate ordered fish.

4. (E)
John orders the veal, so Nat and Lewis cannot (Rule 2).
This makes pork chops Nat’s only choice. Just for the
record, Kate ordering pork chops and Lewis ordering
roast beef kills choices (A) through (D).

5. (C)
Nat doesn’t order pork chops (no one does), so he
orders veal cutlet. Oops, not one of our choices, so we
must continue. John now must order the roast beef
(now his only choice). Still not an answer choice
(though it does rule out choice (A)). Lewis’ choices are
now limited to tilefish, whatever that may be. That’s a
choice—(C). (B) and (E) could be true, (D) never.

6. (A)
Rule 2 forces Nat to order the veal cutlet, and the
same rule mandates that John settle for the roast beef.
John’s complete and accurate list is simply roast beef,
choice (A).

2

Game 2: Seven Families in Houses
Questions 8–13
The Action: A fairly straightforward sequencing game,
with a very minor wrinkle: the use of the terms “west”
and “east” to refer to the different sides of the
sequence. We’re asked to order seven families (K, L,
M, N, O, P, and R) in seven houses lined up west (left)
to east (right) on one side of a street. The Key Issues
are:
1) Which families can, must, or cannot occupy which
house?
2) Which family can, must, or cannot occupy a house
adjacent to what other family?
The Initial Setup: Keep this setup simple; seven
dashes or the numbers 1 to 7 from left to right on your
page will suffice. You may wish to jot down a “W” to the
left and an “E” to the right of the sketch, just for good
measure, to remind you which side is which. List the
roster of families off to the side, and you’re ready to fill
the Rules into this basic setup:
W E
KLMNOPR 1234567
The Rules:
2) Once again, the most concrete rule first: The Kahns
live in the fourth house from the west. Don’t let the
awkward wording throw you. This simply means that
the Kahns live in house 4, so put that directly into the
sketch.
1) “No R” over houses 1 and 7 should help us keep
this in mind.
3) Since the Muirs live next to the Kahns, who live in
house 4, the only possible houses for the Muirs are 3
and 5. Place an “M” with arrows pointing to houses 3
and 5 into your sketch.
4) Since the Kahns live in house 4, this rule tells us
that the Piatts can only live in houses 5, 6, or 7. But
the Piatts can’t live in 7, because the Lowes must live
to the east (right) of them. So the “P…L” chunk will
have to fall somewhere within houses 5, 6, and 7. Jot
that down, and we’re ready to move on.
Key Deductions: There’s no major deduction here, but
there are only a limited number of ways the sequence
could play out. It’s therefore worth quickly exploring the
Section I: Logic Games
possibilities: M lives in either 3 or 5. Let’s say M
occupies the 5th house. Since the P…L pair must be
east of K, we get this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
O/N K M P L
R, O, and N are left to fill in the 1,2 and 3 houses. R,
you remember, can’t be on either end, so that family
would be in either 2 or 3 in this situation, leaving O and
N for the other spots, in either order.
The second scenario is a little more flexible, and arises
if we instead place M 3rd. P and L still need to be to
the right of K, and must still maintain that K..P..L
ordering. The other 3—N, O, and R—would fill the
remaining spots, so long as R isn’t first or last. This
ordering isn’t as determined as the other, and naturally
doesn’t help us as much, but it’s still good to consider
the possibilities in advance, which we’ve done.
The Final Visualization: Here’s what we’re armed with
to tackle the questions:
M
W no R no R E
KLMNOPR 1234567
K
P…L
The Big Picture:
• When one entity is restricted to two options, it’s
usually worth it to try out the possibilities. A rule
of thumb for dealing with such options: If you can
use the rules to narrow down the concrete
possibilities to two, it may be wise to get those
possibilities solidly down on paper. And when
you’ve taken the time to do this, remember to
refer back to this work in the process of handling
the questions.
• Always strive to build a rule directly into your
master sketch. Only when that is not possible,
should you rewrite the rule in your own words.
When rewriting a rule is not feasible, you should
underline or circle it for future reference.
• In such a straightforward game, the testmakers
probably felt that they had the right to include a
slight variation on the sequence—this west to
east business. But aside from the language, this
really doesn’t change anything. Don’t let a little
wrinkle ruin an otherwise simple game for you:
Take command.
3
PrepTest 3 Explained

The Questions: 12. (A)

8. (C)
The Lowes live in house 7 in our first possibility above,
but that’s not a choice. (A), (B), (D), and (E) directly
violate Rules 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively, which leaves
only (C). A glance at our sketch would quickly confirm
the same result.
9. (A)
This one’s also pretty much a gimme. We can easily
infer from Rule 4 that the Piatts live between the Kahns
and the Lowes. Therefore, there’s no way that the
Kahns can live next to the Lowes. The rest of the
families in (B) through (E) can live next to the Kahns.
10. (C)
The info in the stem puts M in house 3, which conjures
up the second scenario we discussed earlier. This was
the less helpful scenario, so let’s check out the
choices.
(A) R can live next to both K and P: K in 4, R in 5, P in
6, and L in 7, with N and O floating between 1 and 2.
(B) is possible too: M,K,P,R,L in 3 through 7, again
with N and O floating at the beginning.
(C) M is in house 3, K is in 4, and P is either in 5 or 6.
It’s therefore not possible for the Rutans to live
between the Muirs and the Piatts, making (C) our
answer.
(D) and (E) Either O or N can live in house 1, and with
R in 2 and M in 3, so both of these are possible.
Here we can deduce that the second scenario above is
operative: The only way for the Owens to live to the
east, or right, of the Muirs, is for M to live in 3, with O,
P and L fitting somewhere in 5, 6, and 7. The two
remaining entities, N and R, will therefore take houses
1 and 2, respectively (R can’t take 1 from Rule 1). The
choice that corresponds to this is (A): K must be east
of M. (B) is false, and (C) through (E) are possible only.
13. (D)
The testmakers liked question 12 so much, here it is
again (nearly). So we should consult the same sketch
as the one for number 12: M is in 3, K is in 4, O, P, and
L are relatively free to float between spaces 5, 6, and
7 (as long as P is before L), N is in house 1, and R is
in house 2. Scan down the list for adjacent families; N
and R must live next to one another, specifically in
houses 1 and 2, respectively. (A), (B), and (E) contain
pairs that are possible neighbors, but need not be,
whereas the pair in (C) are definitely separated by the
Rutans.

11. (A)
N in 3 points us to our first scenario:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
N K M P L
We’re left with R and O for houses 1 and 2, and Rule
1 forces R into house 2 and O into house 1. The entire
setup of families to houses is complete: O, R, N, K, M,
P, L. The Owens clearly do not live next to the
Newmans. Choice (A) it is.

4

Game 3: Car Display
Questions 14–19
The Action: This fairly complex game involves matching
cars with 3 different characteristics (family or sports
car, new or used, and production models or research
models), and then with a fourth characteristic, the floor
they’re displayed on. Important to note that each floor
contains all or one of each of the three different
characteristics, i.e. there will not be both new and used
cars on a single floor. There’s only one major Key Issue
that every question will involve:
1) What characteristics are exhibited by the cars on
each floor?
The Initial Setup: Since we’re dealing with 3 floors
each containing 3 characteristics, one possible way to
visualize this is to draw a 3 by 3 table. We can label the
vertical side of the box 3, 2, and 1, from top to bottom,
and each box across horizontally would represent one
of the three characteristics: style, age and type. This
way we can picture each floor and it’s relevant traits:
F/S N/U P/R
3
2 S
1 If U, then P F
The Rules:
Where to start? As usual, with the concrete rules.
4) The cars on floor 1 are new. An “N” in the
appropriate grid box will remind us that ALL of the cars
on floor 1 are new.
5) The cars on floor 3 are used. A “U” in the
appropriate floor 3 grid box means that all the cars
exhibited there are used.
1) This rule is fairly lengthy, so take your time and be
sure that you fully understand it. IF (that’s a big if)
there are both family and sports cars, then all of the
family cars will be on lower floors than any of the
sports cars. So if there are both kinds, floor 1 must be
family cars and floor 3 must be spor ts cars.
Understanding this rule is far more important than
exactly how you choose to represent it on the page.
2) There are NO cars that are both used and research
models. What does this tell us? If a car is used, then
it must also be a production model. If a car is a
research model, then it must be new. If a car is
Section I: Logic Games
new…nothing. Be careful, a new car can either be a
research model or a production model. “If U, then P”
and “if R, then N” should help us remember this.
3) None of the cars in the exhibition are both research
models and sports cars. Again, be careful when
considering what this means. If a car is a research
model, then it must be a family car. If a car is a sports
car, then it must be a production model. If a car is a
family car or a production model, then we know nothing
(or at least nothing new). “If R, then F” and “if S, then
P” will aid in sorting it out.
Key Deductions: The results of our work with Rules 2
and 3 certainly qualify as “Key Deductions.” However,
there’s even more to piece together. Rule 2 yielded “if
Research, then New,” and Rule 3 yielded “if Research,
then Family.” To make it easier we can combine those
to get “if Research, then New and Family.” Also, don’t
neglect your grid. Rule 5 resulted in a big “U” under
floor 3, and thanks to Rule 2, we know that “if Used,
then Production.” Therefore, the floor 3 cars must be
production models. Two of the three characteristics
are taken care of for that floor.
The Final Visualization: Here’s what we have just
before facing off with the questions:
If F+S, then F/S N/U P/R
…
3 U P
If R, then N+F 2
If S, then P 1 N
The Big Picture:
• Concrete information is much more powerful than
the abstract. Always ask yourself, and focus on,
what you do know, instead of what you don’t
know.
• Remember the contrapositive. Don’t forget the
contrapositive. Always recall the contrapositive.
Never neglect the contrapositive.
• It’s very possible that you would have been best
served leaving this game until last—many test-
takers who took control of the section did just
that.
5
PrepTest 3 Explained

The Questions: 18. (D)

14. (A)
If sports cars are on exactly 2 floors, then family cars
must be on exactly 1 floor, and Rule 1 applies: Sports
cars must be on floors 2 and 3, which eliminates
choices (C) and (E), and family cars must be on floor
1, which contradicts choice (B). Floors 2 and 3 contain
sports cars which are production models (Rule 3).
Choice (D) is therefore out. Only choice (A), research
models on floor 1, is possible.
15. (D)
No new information here, so move right on to the
choices. Rule 2 kills choices (B), (C) and (E), since we
know that at least one floor has used cars. Rule 3 axes
choice (A). We’re left with choice (D), and it is indeed
possible that exactly one floor has research models (as
long as that floor is floor 1 since it would have to
contain new research model family cars).
Rule 3: All research cars are family cars. Stem: All new
cars are research cars. Therefore: All new cars are
family cars, which happens to be choice (D).
Family cars need not be anything in particular, so
choices (A) through (C) are out.
Similarly, in (E), a production model car could be a
sports car.
19. (A)
If all production models are used, then a car that is not
used (new), must not be production (research). So floor
1’s new cars must be of the research variety, which
means that floor 1’s cars must also be family cars
(Rule 3). We get this in choice (A).
(B) through (E) all could be true, but also could be
false.

16. (D)
Another non-if, this one a “must be true” with no new
information. A quick scan through the choices in
search of one of our earlier deductions turns up choice
(D)—production models on floor 3. (A), (B), and (C)
are possible only, while (E) is totally impossible.

17. (E)
Since we deduced that floor 3 contains production
models, the 2 floors with research models must be
floors 1 and 2. A quick glance at your scratchwork tells
you that these research cars must be new family cars
(Rules 2 and 3). Notice that this takes care of eight out
of the nine possible boxes in our table. Also notice that
the question is a “can be false” question. Here’s
where the on-the-ball test-taker realizes that it’s a good
bet that the answer to the question will almost
certainly deal with the one box that’s still unresolved,
which deals with the family/sports issue on floor 3
(everything else is determined, and therefore must be
true). Choice (E), family cars on 3, could be false, and
therefore does the trick. Choices (A) through (D)
correspond perfectly to the situation, so naturally they
all must be true.

6

Game 4: Pilots and Copilots
Questions 20–24
The Action: In this grouping game, we’re asked to
distribute six entities—three pilots and three
copilots—among four planes—planes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
While the numbering of the planes may suggest
sequencing, your overview should have dispelled that
misconception right away: There’s no mention that
these planes are “in a row;” they’re not numbered
“from left to right;” and none of the rules say anything
about people being “in adjacent planes,” or anything
like that. Our job is simply to distribute the pilots and
copilots into the planes. The main Key Issue,
therefore, is a grouping concern:
1) Who’s in what plane? And by extension: Which
pilots and copilots can, must, or cannot fly in the same
plane as which other pilots and copilots?
The Initial Setup: Keep this setup simple; four circles
or columns, numbered 1 to 4, can represent the
planes. Then list the pilots and copilots off to the side:
P C 1 2 3 4
ABC DEF
The Rules:
1) and 2) You most likely already used these rules to
get a handle on the entities. However, some test takers
overlooked a key element of these rules—that the
pilots and copilots “are all aboard planes that are flying
in the show.” This means that everyone flies. Selecting
who flies isn’t an issue; they’re all up in the air. The
only question here is which plane each person is in. As
for listing the entities, some find it helpful to use
capital letters for the pilots and lowercase letters for
the copilots, some don’t. Do what’s easiest for you.
3) Translation: Every plane that’s flying needs one
pilot—at least one. This rule says nothing about
copilots, nor does it imply that only one pilot may fly in
a particular plane. So far, it’s quite possible that
exactly one pilot flies a plane without a copilot, just as
it’s possible for more than one pilot to fly in one plane.
4) This rule is basically a loophole closer to ensure
that no one from the audience or anywhere else rushes
out and pilots a plane.
Section I: Logic Games
5) Anna will only fly in plane 1 or plane 4. Since
everyone is flying in the show, we know that one of
these planes must be used. To build this into our
master sketch, write “A” with arrows pointing to planes
1 and 4.
6) Dave only flies in plane 2 or plane 3—“D” with
arrows to 2 and 3 takes care of this.
Key Deductions: Not much in the way of deductions,
but there are a few issues that are worth working out
before hitting the questions. First, the numbers: No
plane flies without a qualified pilot aboard. But we have
only three qualified pilots, which means that a
maximum of three of the four planes are flying; at
least one is going to remain empty and on the ground.
Also, since a plane can’t fly without a pilot (Rule 3), we
know that one of the pilots must join Dave (a copilot) in
either plane 2 or plane 3. It can’t be Anna, since she’s
in plane 1 or 4, so Dave must fly with either B or C, in
plane 2 or 3.
The Final Visualization: Here’s what we’re armed with
to reel in these five questions:
A
D
At Least 1 2 3 4
1 Pilot
Either B or C
with D
The Big Picture:
• Don’t forget that critical reading is incredibly
important for Logic Games as well as for the
other sections of the test. Sometimes, the
testmakers only imply—i.e., don’t clearly spell
out—information that proves to be vital to the
game. Interrogate the stimulus: “Do all pilots
fly?” Yes. “Do all copilots fly?” Yes. “Do all planes
fly?” No—in fact that’s impossible. As many
planes fly as are needed to get the 6 people aloft.
• Attempt to weed out the game’s major concern.
Not every game has one specific major concern,
but in the ones that do, focusing on this aspect
will help you in almost every question. In this
case, our major concern is “who will accompany
7
PrepTest 3 Explained

Dave?” At least Bob or Cindy—if not both—must 23. (B)

do so, so you should find it helpful to incorporate
new information from the question stems into the
context of how it relates to taking care of Dave.
• Use the hints provided for you in the question
stems. The phrase in question 23’s stem “If
plane 1 is used” clearly implies the possibility of
cases in which it is not used. True, this question
comes towards the end of the game, but very
often in a game whose action is slightly unusual
or complex, one of the first few question stems
will help to clarify the situation.
The Questions:
This is ver y much like a standard acceptability
question. (D) and (E) bite the dust thanks to Rule 6.
Dave can’t fly in 1 but must have a pilot with him in
plane 2 or 3, so any prospective plane-1 crew that
included all three pilots would be impossible. That
eliminates Choice (A). (C) leaves only Anna to join
Dave which isn’t possible. That leaves us with (B)—
Anna, Bob, Ed, and Fran—a perfectly acceptable crew
for plane 1, with Cindy and Dave in plane 2 or 3.
24. (C)
Dave and one pilot can’t be in 4, but everybody else
can be. That’s the maximum, four people, choice (C).

20. (B)
Anna is in plane 4 and Dave is in plane 2. Well, we
knew we’d have to focus on the Dave situation, and
here it is right off the bat. Since Bob or Cindy (or both)
needs to accompany Dave, Cindy in 3 forces Bob into
2 with Dave.
(A) No reason why Cindy couldn’t fly in plane 2 with
Dave.
(C) No, Bob could fly in plane 2.
(D) No; if Bob flies in plane 4, Cindy would have to fly
with Dave in plane 2.
(E) If Cindy flies in plane 2 with Dave, then Bob could
fly in any of the planes.

21. (C)
Anna can’t fly with Dave (Rules 5 and 6). If Bob joins
Anna, he can’t fly with Dave. So Cindy would have to fly
with copilot Dave, choice (C). Choices (A), (B), (D),
and (E) all could be true, but none of them must be
true.

22. (D)
Cindy and Fran fly alone, Anna never flies with Dave, so
Bob must fly with Dave, choice (D). (A) is dead wrong,
and (B), (C), and (E) are merely possible.

8

SECTION II:
LOGICAL REASONING
1. (C)
In this parallel reasoning question, the stimulus is fairly
easily to symbolize: If you have a lot of money in the
bank, (if X), your spending power is great (then Y). If
your spending power is great, (if Y), then you are happy
(then Z). The conclusion combines the first two
sentences: If you have a large amount of money in the
bank, (if X), then you are happy, (then Z). So the
complete argument in symbols would read ``If X, then
Y. If Y, then Z. Therefore, if X, then Z.’’ Choice (C) has
the same form as the stimulus argument: If you swim,
(if X), then your heart rate increases (then Y). If Y, then
you are overexcited (then Z). Therefore, if X, then Z.
(A) If you have good health, (if X), then you can earn a
lot, (then Y). If Y, then you can buy an expensive house,
(then Z). Therefore, if X, then you can have a
comfortable life, (then Q?)
(B) If you drink too much, (if X), then you will feel sick,
(then Y). If X, then you will have no money left, (then Z).
Therefore, if Z, then Y.
(D) If you exercise, (if X), then you are fit, (then Y). If X,
then you are exhausted, (then Z.) Therefore, if Y, then Z.
(E) If you have a lot of money in the bank, (if X), then
you are confident about the future, (then Y). If you are
optimistic, (if Z), then Y. Therefore, if X, then Z.
2. (E)
The stimulus concludes that a person’s birth sign
influences their personality. We want to cast doubt on
the conclusion that the subjects, because they were
Geminis, were more sociable and outgoing than the
average person. The key here is that the subjects were
all volunteers. Would shy, introverted people offer to
appear on a TV program? Probably not. (E) picks up on
this, offering a plausible explanation which suggests
that the method itself, and not astrology, could have
produced the results.
(A) is an au contraire choice. Since the test results
matched the investigators’ impressions, the test would
seem to be more valid if it were administered by
impartial people.
(B) is useless background information; since astrologers
are far from impartial in this discussion, their claims
cannot be used as plausible evidence. In any case, to
say that non-Geminis are less sociable than Geminis
supports the investigators’ case, so this is also an au
Section II: Logical Reasoning
contraire choice.(C) also seems to be supporting the
work of the investigators, rather than casting doubt
upon it. If the investigators’ first impressions of people
are confirmed by their later observations of the people,
then all this proves is that the investigators are good
observers and good judges of character, right? This
certainly doesn’t indicate a flaw in their method.
(D) is more useless background info. Whether it’s likely
that there are more Geminis on the street than in the
general population has little to do with the possible
influence of astrology on personality and in no way
criticizes the investigators’ research methods.
3. (D)
The conclusion: North American children can be made
physically fit only if they have daily calisthenics at
school. The evidence: European children, who engage
in calisthenics each day at school, are stronger, faster,
and less easily-winded than North American children,
whose schools rarely offer daily calisthenics programs.
The assumption: calisthenics are a key part of the
European children’s physical fitness. Choice (D) neatly
paraphrases this assumption, and is the correct
choice.
(A) confuses necessity with sufficiency. The author
assumes that calisthenics are necessary to insure
physical fitness; whether they are sufficient to do so is
a different question.
(B) This need not be so in order for the conclusion to
remain valid; try the Denial Test, and you’ll be
convinced.
(C) and (E) are beyond the scope of the argument. The
author never mentions health (C) or nutrition (E), so he
or she needn’t assume anything about either.
4. (B)
If buildings have to be unobtrusive in order to be
inviting and functional, and modern architects produce
buildings that are not functional because their strong
personalities take over their work, then we can
conclude that these specific architects are producing
buildings that are not unobtrusive.
(A) and (D), much like (A) in the previous question,
confuse necessity with sufficiency. It may be necessary
for a building to be unobtrusive (A) and take second
place to the environment (D) in order for it to be inviting
and functional, but that doesn’t mean either is
sufficient for that to happen.
(C) Simply because an architect has a strong
personality, it doesn’t mean that he or she must let
9
PrepTest 3 Explained
that personality take over. We know that in some cases
this has been true, but perhaps some architects can
control their strong personalities, and still be able to
produce unobtrusive buildings.
(E) It’s never stated that an architect can’t put his or
her personality into a building without having it be
obtrusive; we’re told only that architects who let their
strong personalities take over their work haven’t
produced buildings that are functional for public use.
5. (E)
The director argues for the funding of the
megatelescope on the grounds that the whole world
benefits from new technology and new inventions, and
that funding for these ventures is not beneficial to only
the scientists themselves. The director uses Maxwell,
Newton and Einstein as examples of scientists who
were not limited by a lack of funding, and were,
therefore, able to make discoveries that benefited the
whole world. Clearly, the director is drawing an analogy
between the megatelescope research and the research
of those three great scientists. That’s a pretty heady
comparison to make; the author needs to present
evidence showing that the megatelescope research
may approach the same level as that done by these
great scientists. (E) is therefore the strongest criticism
of the argument.
(A) The director is using Newton and the others as
examples of earlier scientists who made great
discoveries; there is absolutely no appeal to the
authority of these long-dead people on the subject of
the megatelescope. And since they’re the only experts
mentioned, (A) isn’t a possible criticism of the
argument.
(B) is irrelevant. It really doesn’t matter who opposes
the development or funding of the megatelescope,
because the opponents of this argument aren’t being
attacked by the director; only their point of view is
questioned.
(C) is a distortion. Charging that someone’s point of
view is dangerous is distinctly not the same as
launching a personal attack on that person.
(D) makes an irrelevant distinction. The word “benefit”
in either the economic or the intellectual sense would
have the same effect on the argument, since the
astronomers, along with the rest of the world, could
reap either or both kinds of benefits from the funding.
6. (C)
The author argues that a fare hike of forty percent
must be implemented even though it will cause
10
economic hardship for users of transportation. The
evidence for this conclusion is that if the fare doesn’t
increase, service will be cut, and a large loss of
ridership will occur. The author doesn’t given any
reason why the fare hike should occur; she only
outlines the negative consequences that will result if it
doesn’t occur. (C), which states that the author arrives
at a conclusion indirectly by rejecting an alternative,
explains her strategy quite clearly.
(A) directly contradicts the stimulus; the author freely
admits that some riders will experience hardship
because of the hike.
(B) The argument does explore the other side of the
issue, and its consequences, but there’s no indication
that a supporter of an alternate position would face a
contradiction.
(D) The author doesn’t argue by defending her
proposal against objections leveled at the alternative.
Rather, she herself raises objections against the
alternative and argues that they are stronger than
those that can be raised against her proposal, which is
to raise fares.
(E) is out in left field. There’s no mention of past
actions with regard to fare increases, and the author
certainly doesn’t prove anything by using evidence from
the past.
7. (A)
Everyone who participates in local politics has an
influence on the community’s values. Since some of
those people are selfish oppor tunists, we can
conclude that some selfish opportunists have an
influence on the community’s values.
(B), (C), (D), and (E) could be true. None of these
must be true.
8. (B)
The discrepancy: lighteners, which are without
cholesterol, raise the blood cholesterol levels of
consumers higher than does the milk, which contains 2
milligrams of cholesterol. The key here is that
lighteners contain more saturated fat than milk. So
we’re looking for a choice that will explain the
relationship between saturated fat and cholesterol,
with regard to blood cholesterol levels. (B) does just
that.
(A) is useless background information. The nutritionists’
recommendation doesn’t explain why a product which
doesn’t contain cholesterol, like a lightener, would
produce more blood cholesterol than a product like
milk, which does contain cholesterol.

(C) adds an irrelevant distinction. Light cream has
absolutely no bearing on the issue, which is the relative
effects of lighteners with no cholesterol, and milk with
cholesterol.
(D) is irrelevant, because it brings up a lightener that
doesn’t contain coconut oil. So what if this type of
lightener has less fat and cholesterol than milk? It still
doesn’t help to resolve the discrepancy involving
coconut oil lighteners.
(E) This choice explains the relationship between the
fat and cholesterol levels of most dairy products, but it
doesn’t address the difference between the two
different products that form the basis of the paradox—
the non-dairy lightener with high fat, and the dairy
product (milk with cholesterol).
9. (D)
If the consumer is using a very small amount of
lightener, as opposed to a very large amount of milk,
then it follows that the amount of cholesterol in the
large quantity of milk will add up and have a greater
effect on the consumer’s blood cholesterol than the
amount of saturated fat in the smaller quantity of
lightener. So, if (D) is true, the manufacturers’ claims
would be considerably strengthened.
(A) neither weakens nor strengthens the argument.
We’re talking about changes in the typical consumers’
levels, changes due to lightener or milk. The effect of
health practices on some people’s cholesterol levels is
beyond the scope of the argument.
(B) The desserts that accompany coffee have nothing
to do with the effect of lightener, as opposed to milk,
on consumers’ cholesterol levels.
(C) is a useless distinction. Coffee lighteners that are
not based on coconut oil are irrelevant to the claims of
manufacturers of lighteners that are based on coconut
oil.
(E) Dismissing the possibility of psychosomatic
effects, the beliefs of the consumer really don’t enter
into this discussion.
10. (E)
This is really a thinly veiled formal logic stimulus. The
first sentence can be put into if-then form: If people
have serious financial problems, then they can’t be
happy. And this, of course, is logically equivalent to its
contrapositive: if people are happy, then they do not
have serious financial problems.
(A) and (D) We can’t infer that serious financial
problems (or in (A)’s case, serious problems—notice
the scope shift) are the only things that can make
Section II: Logical Reasoning
people unhappy. In this case, serious financial
problems are sufficient to make people unhappy, but
that doesn’t mean that this condition is necessary for
unhappiness.
(B) and (C) also confuse necessary and sufficient
conditions. Notice that when we negate the conditions,
the paradigm shifts: Not having serious financial
problems is necessary to being happy (according to the
passage), but it is not sufficient.
11. (D)
This one’s a method of argument question, so the
operative question is: what’s the author doing? He’s
presenting a belief, or proposal, and then telling us
why, if the proposal were put in practice, it would have
illogical, foolish results. (D) is the closest paraphrase
of this.
(A) is a clear contradiction of what the author is trying
to do. True, he is stating a general principle, but he’s
presenting an argument against, not for, adopting it.
(B) The author doesn’t offer specific evidence of
unfavorable consequences that have occurred—he
offers his view about what would happen if the principle
in the first sentence were adopted, but never provides
actual results of real applications of the principle.
(C) distorts the author’s main point. The thrust of the
argument is not that the expected consequences won’t
result, but rather that unexpected ones will.
(E) The author is upset about what would happen if
the principle were applied. Whether the principle can be
uniformly applied, or applied at all, is not in question.
12. (D)
The evidence: photovoltaic power plants, which
produce electricity from sunlight, are now one-tenth as
costly as they were twenty years ago, whereas
traditional power plants have increased in cost. The
conclusion: photovoltaic plants produce electricity less
expensively than do traditional plants. But the fact that
one method is cheaper than it used to be while another
is more costly than it used to be is not enough to
conclude that the first is therefore cheaper than the
second today. We need some link between the costs of
the two methods that will allow the conclusion to
stand, and the assumption in (E) does the trick.
(A) simply restates some of the evidence.
(B) makes an irrelevant distinction. The amount of
electric power is not addressed in the stimulus; it’s the
cost of producing the power that we’re concerned with
here.
11
PrepTest 3 Explained
(C) The author needn’t assume that none of the
advances can be applied to traditional plants in order
to conclude that photovoltaic plants produce electricity
less expensively than do traditional plants. The main
issue is the relative cost of the two methods, and since
this doesn’t tie directly into that, it isn’t relied upon by
the stimulus.
(E) So what? Unless we know what the cost of a
traditional plant is compared to that of a photovoltaic
plant, we can’t say that the argument is properly
drawn.
13. (A)
Here’s another parallel reasoning stimulus that lends
itself to symbolic representation: If X (that insect is a
bee), then Y (it can only sting once). Y (it only stung
once), therefore X (it is a bee). This faulty structure is
matched by choice (A). It takes some rearranging, but
the elements of (A) boil down to: If X (it is spring), then
Y (I cannot stop sneezing). Y (I sneezed), therefore X
(spring is here). Note how it exhibits the same flaw as
the original: In the stimulus, it’s very possible that the
insect is not a bee, and is another insect that just
happened to sting only once. In (A), it’s possible that
it’s not spring, and that the person in question just
happened to sneeze during some other season.
(B) If X (the sky is clear), then Y (the atmospheric
pressure is high). Almost X (it’s clearing up), therefore
almost Y (the pressure is bound to be high soon).
(C) If X (the painting is old and brittle), then Y (it will be
moved with extreme care). Not Y (that painting is not
moved with extreme care), therefore Not X (it is not old
and brittle).
(D) If X (there was one more thunderstorm), then Y
(the roof would be ruined). Not Y (the roof is fine),
therefore Not X (there must not have been any
thunderstorms).
(E) Really doesn’t fit the structure we’ve set up. We
might be able to say: If X (one survives in the wild),
then Y (one has physical stamina like Mark’s). But then
we get into Mark’s fear of spiders (Z?).
14. (B)
Quincy’s argument is that physician training does not
need to change because it has worked in the past. To
counter this, we need a choice that shows that current
medical practice is somehow different than in the past,
and therefore requires a change in training methods.
Choice (B) fits this qualification nicely. If (B) were true,
it would mean that physicians in training would have to
deal with more crisis situations than did physicians in
12
the past, and therefore, that the mental and emotional
strain of the long work hours may make them more
likely to make faulty decisions.
(A) is an au contraire choice. If the responsibilities of
the resident staff have not changed over the past
decades, then Quincy seems right in arguing “if it ain’t
broke, don’t fix it.”
(C) involves a scope shift: We’re concerned with medical
practice in general, not ER patients especially.
(D) makes a useless distinction. We’re not concerned
with the differences in workload among the different
specialties.
(E) doesn’t give us enough information to effectively
counter Quincy’s argument. Although it argues for
observation over thirty-six hours, and therefore could
support the need for residents to be on rounds for that
long a period, we’re not told that the observation
needs to be continuous.
15. (D)
Experiments like this one are logically valid only if the
two groups are exactly alike to begin with and if one of
them is exposed to one variable. In this case, the
variable is being shown violent TV programs right
before play. Since the author has concluded that the
experiment was valid, she is assuming that the two
groups had no differences other than the exposure to
violent TV programs; in other words, that the television
programs were the sole cause of the violence, and that
nothing else could have been the cause. Choice (D)
correctly identifies this assumption.
(A) is a scope shift. The author is not talking about the
effect of all television programs on all of society. The
focus of this passage is the effects of violent television
programs on children.
(B) What if they’re not? Ultimate responsibility isn’t
the issue. In fact, the argument’s thrust is to show the
responsibility of TV, not parents.
(C) is an au contraire choice. In order to make her
argument, the author must believe that violence and
passive observation of violence (in this case, watching
violence on television), are directly related.
(E) is beyond the scope. The author never mentions
any violent treatment toward the children.
16. (C)
Because waste gets disposed of in less populated
areas, those who are responsible for dumping are not
as fearless about its effects as they claim. This
assumes that there is no plausible alternate

explanation for the disposal pattern. (C) weakens the
argument by giving a reasonable alternative
explanation: Dumping nuclear waste in less populated
areas poses fewer economic and bureaucratic
problems than dumping in areas of denser population.
(A) and (B) are au contraire choices. The acknowledgment
that there could be an accident indicates that nuclear
waste does, in fact, pose some threat to people.
(D) is an irrelevant comparison. Pointing out chemical
dangers won’t show that nuclear waste is safe; they’re
unrelated.
(E) supports the author’s argument. It seems to be a
statement of what the policy makers really believe, but
just won’t admit.
17. (C)
The United States has, overall, seen a decline in its
infant mortality rate in the past few years. But this
does not mean that the babies born in the United
States are healthier now than they were in the past. So
the author is assuming the existence of an alternate
explanation for the decline in the infant mortality rate.
To support the argument, we need a choice that offers
this alternate explanation. Choice (C) tells us that the
United States has developed technology that can save
babies that would have died otherwise. So while we
may have just as many sick or premature babies being
born, we have fewer babies dying as a result of
sickness or premature birth thanks to the advanced
technology. This would explain why the decrease in
mortality rates has no connection with the average
health of the infants.
(A) is useless background information; it doesn’t address
the contrast between the overall infant mortality rate
and infant health.
(B) doesn’t help us support the author’s claim; we
don’t need more information about infant death. What
we do need is information that would explain why a
decline in the infant mortality rate doesn’t signal an
increase in health.
(D) We’ve already been told that the overall infant
mortality rate has been declining. Like (A), this
provides background, but doesn’t do anything to
explain or support the claim that overall infant health
hasn’t improved.
(E) is a “left-field” choice. We’re concerned with why
health hasn’t improved along with the infant mortality
rate; we’re not interested in the relationship between
babies’ health and how much attention they receive.
Section II: Logical Reasoning
18. (C)
The author’s whole point is that Raghnall’s conclusion
is based on inadequate evidence. The author’s
evidence is the alternative explanation he provides for
the survey’s results; namely, that couples may blame
finances for their marriage problems when finances
aren’t the real problem. He uses this alternative
explanation to make the point that Raghnall has
jumped to conclusions—that she has failed to consider
other possible explanations for the survey’s results.
Thus, the author believes that Raghnall’s conclusion is
inadequately justified.
(A) distorts the argument. The author’s point isn’t so
much that financial problems are not a big factor in the
breakup of marriages, but rather that Raghnall cannot
reasonably conclude that they are without additional
evidence.
(B) is outside the scope, a sure sign it’s not the main
point. Marriage counselors have never even been
mentioned.
(D) simply restates the evidence, and not even the
author’s evidence, but Raghnall’s.
(E) is a subtle misreading. The author does allude to
“a number of other articles,’’ but all we know is that
these ar ticles relied on the same sur vey that
Raghnall’s did; we don’t know that they necessarily
drew the same conclusion that Raghnall did.
19. (B)
We pretty much answered this in our analysis of 18:
The author offers a different interpretation of the
survey’s results—basically, that couples often express
their frustrations about other aspects of their marriage
in financial terms, blaming money when money isn’t
the problem. In other words, the author undermines
Raghnall’s conclusion by offering an alternative
explanation for some of the data on which his
conclusion was based.
(A) The author never supplies us with a specific
counterexample. He gives us an alternative
explanation, but he never gives us any specific
examples, such as: Couple X blamed money for their
problems, but their real problem was…
(C) is off-base because all the author claims is that the
survey doesn’t establish that financial problems are
the major problem in marriages. “Financial problems’’
or `”money’’ can hardly be called an emotion, and
Raghnall hasn’t referred to anything else as a cause of
divorce.
13
PrepTest 3 Explained
(D) shifts the scope a bit: The author never criticizes
the survey; he criticizes Raghnall’s conclusion, which is
based on the survey. (E) goes too far. The author never
demonstrates or shows that couples cannot accurately
describe their marital problems. He merely claims that
they often fail to do so.
20. (C)
Since we’re asked to pick the one choice out of five
that does NOT weaken the argument, we know that the
argument will be pretty vulnerable to weakeners. There
are a number of assumptions at work in this argument,
many of which lead to the weakeners in the wrong
choices, but choice (C) is correct because it’s totally
irrelevant to the issue of honey production.
(A) weakens the argument by undermining the major
assumption that what’s true of Brazil will be true of the
U.S. If, as (A) claims, the native bees in Brazil are
different from the ones here, then the comparison the
author cites is irrelevant—maybe domestic U.S. bees
produce more honey than both Brazilian and
Africanized bees do.
(B) and (D) both undermine another one of the
argument’s basic assumptions: that commercial honey
production won’t decline for some other reason. If, as
(B) says, it’s more costly and difficult to use
Africanized bees, or if, as (D) says, a lot of the people
now responsible for honey production would rather
cease and desist than use Africanized bees, then it’s
quite possible that commercial honey production will
decline if these bees are introduced. In any case, the
author can no longer conclude for sure that it won’t
decline.
(E) If Africanized bees are better suited to Brazil, then
the author can no longer assume that in America,
they’ll produce more honey than American honeybees.
Who knows, maybe they’ll all die off once they get
here.
21. (B)
According to a recent report, low blood cholesterol
weakens artery walls, increasing the likelihood that the
arteries will rupture, and thereby bring about a cerebral
hemorrhage. The author concludes that this new report
supports the long-held belief of Japanese researchers
that Western diets are better at protecting against
cerebral hemorrhage than are non-Western diets.
For this conclusion to be valid, the author must be
assuming that Western diets lead to a higher blood
cholesterol level than non-Western diets.
14
(A) A healthier diet isn’t the issue here—we need
information that fills in the connection between the
blood cholesterol evidence and the conclusion of the
Japanese researchers in the last sentence, and this
isn’t it.
(C) The author tells us that high blood cholesterol
lowers the risk of weakened artery walls. He never
says that it eliminates this risk, nor does his argument
depend on this information.
(D) is an irrelevant comparison. In fact, the author
could assume that cerebral hemorrhages are less
dangerous than strokes caused by blood clots, and it
wouldn’t damage his claim that Western diets are less
likely to lead to cerebral hemorrhages.
(E) involves a scope shift: Low blood pressure is an
irrelevant issue, because we don’t know how this
relates to blood cholesterol.
22. (A)
This is simply a matter of a very common chain of
argument: IF X, then Y. If Y, then Z. Therefore, if X,
then Z. Specifically: If the country is to remain
internationally competitive, then there is an undeniable
need for citizens to better understand international
affairs. If there’s a need for this better understanding
of international affairs, then all of our new teachers
must be prepared to teach their subject matter with an
international orientation. This allows us to infer that
the first statement leads to the third: If the country is
to remain internationally competitive, then all of our
new teachers must be prepared to teach their subjects
with an international orientation.
(B) and (C), like many choices before them on this
test, confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. The
stimulus establishes the ability of new teachers to
teach with an international focus as necessary for the
country to remain competitive. We can’t infer, as (B)
suggests, that it’s sufficient for this. And as for (C),
better understanding of international affairs by our
citizens is also necessary, but not sufficient, for the
country to remain competitive.
(D) completely denies the author’s first if-then
statement, which is an important premise in the
argument.
(E) All we’re told about public reports is that they
stressed the need for citizens to better understand
international affairs. We have no evidence that they
said anything about training teachers to teach with an
international focus—that requirement was inserted by
the author.
 Section II: Logical Reasoning

23. (C) (E) A similar story: this choice interprets independence

We’re asked to weaken the proponents’ argument, and as sufficient for progress, when in fact, all we’ve been
conveniently enough, we’re given their assumption. told is that it’s necessary. Certainly, there are other
Your best bet is to look for a choice that undermines factors that could come into play.
that assumption, which we get in (C): If genetic
characteristics can occur in sets, that breaks down the 25. (E)
proponents’ assumption that these characteristics The key here is the author’s vague use of the term
occur independently. “adequate.” If our main enemy is gone, who’s to say
(A) is an au contraire choice. If the genetic material that a reduced defense budget wouldn’t be adequate?
that all people have in common with each other and If the primary motivation for spending so much money
with animals is excluded from the procedure, then that on defense in the first place is no longer relevant, isn’t
makes the analysis much more specific, and, inferably, it reasonable to expect that we could spend less
more valid. money and still defend ourselves as “adequately” as
before?
(B) If anything, this choice strengthens the proponents
claim by dismissing a possible argument against the (A) distorts the passage—since the whole point is that
procedure; the argument that it’s unreliable because the public may no longer be persuaded, the author
different people could obtain different readings of the certainly doesn’t argue that this “manipulation’’ can
same pattern. continue indefinitely.
(D) contains a scope shift: The point here is whether (B) just plain denies what the author says, which does
the procedure is valid when done accurately. not amount to finding a weakness in his reasoning. We
want a criticism of his reasoning, not merely an
(E) is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not DNA
unsupported denial of his facts.
fingerprinting can be accurately used to match two
different samples of genetic material. Any other use is (C) is a fancy way of accusing the author of using
a separate issue. circular reasoning. However, the evidence (the
dissolution of the Eastern bloc) is quite different from
24. (A) the conclusion, which is that there will be insufficient
support for an adequate defense budget.
The argument compares schools to cultures; schools
would have to progress the same way cultures (D) The author does give a reason for his opinion: the
progress. Cultures cannot progress if outsiders impose dissolution of the Eastern bloc. It may not be a very
their views. So the same must be true for an individual good reason, but it’s a reason all the same.
school: If a school is to progress, it must be free of
outside imposition. Choice (A) carries out this analogy
between schools and cultures.
(B) The author doesn’t mention degrees of independence,
or degrees of initiative; he merely claims that the only
way a culture can progress is if it is independent of
outside imposition.
(C) We’re told that progress for an individual school, or
culture, requires independence from outside
imposition. The idea of school system officials deciding
what changes to make is directly counter to this.
(D) goes too far. The author never says outsiders must
be totally shut out if progress is to be achieved; in fact,
he admits they can provide valuable advice.

15
PrepTest 3 Explained
SECTION III:
READING COMPREHENSION
Passage 1: Asteroids
Questions 1–7
Topic and Scope: Asteroids; specifically whether or not
it’s possible for asteroids to have satellites.
Purpose and Main Idea: The author examines the state
of the evidence for asteroid satellites. While
observations of “secondary occultations” have led
some astronomers to accept the existence of such
satellites, others remain unconvinced and are looking
for specific further evidence (“well-behaved” secondary
events).
Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 introduces the
topic, saying that while most astronomers used to
think it was impossible for asteroids to have satellites,
theoreticians knew all along that such a thing was
possible. Paragraph 2 supports the theoreticians;
observations have led many astronomers to believe
that asteroids can have satellites, because when
asteroids pass in front of stars, “something besides
the known asteroid sometimes blocks out the star as
well.”
Paragraph 3 describes the “most convincing…report”
of an asteroid that might have a satellite. When the
asteroid Herculina passed in front of a star, the
occultation was preceded by another occultation, which
led astronomers to believe that a satellite orbiting the
asteroid had also passed in front of the star. Paragraph
4 notes that, after the Herculina event, reports of
secondary occultations became “respectable,” but
warns that such reports have grown so numerous that
they can’t possibly all be accurate. Paragraph 5
concludes by saying that even astronomers who remain
skeptical would be convinced by a “photoelectric
record” of a “well-behaved” secondary occultation of a
star, one definitely caused by a body accompanying an
asteroid.
The Big Picture:
• A firm grasp of the passage doesn’t mean
absorbing all of its details (you can look them
up if you need to). Rather, it means figuring out
what the author’s doing in the text—in this
instance, providing evidence that suggests that
theoreticians have been correct all along about
asteroid-satellite systems.
16
• Although the author’s specific main idea isn’t
entirely clear until you’ve read through the whole
passage, topic, scope, and purpose are all
revealed by line 15. That makes this passage an
ideal place to start work on this RC section, even
if you suffer from “science anxiety.” Topic, scope,
and purpose, after all, are the three things that
you need to grasp as quickly as possible in order
to get the passage under control.
The Questions:
1. (E)
This passage is about the existence of asteroid-satellite
systems: astronomers used to doubt their existence,
but now recognize that they are theoretically possible,
and are looking for definitive proof. (E) correctly notes
that theoreticians were on to the existence of asteroid-
satellite systems before astronomers were. Moreover,
(E)’s idea that astronomers agree on what would be
conclusive proof echoes the final paragraph.
(A) focuses on a detail—the Heruclina event. But the
passage is about asteroid-satellite systems in general,
not just about the Herculina observations.
(B) Au contraire. The first sentence of the passage
tells us that astronomers “long believed” that stable
asteroid-satellite systems weren’t possible; furthermore,
skepticism about the existence of such systems has
decreased.
(C) Au contraire aussi. The Herculina event supported
the theoreticians’ views about asteroid-satellite
systems. Besides, like (A), this choice is focused on a
detail.
(D) is a “half-right, half-wrong” choice. Skeptical
astronomers aren’t waiting for new theoretical models,
but for physical evidence in the form of photoelectric
records.
2. (D)
Heruclina is discussed in Paragraph 3. It says there
that astronomers watching the Herculina event were
surprised by an unexpected drop in brightness that
occurred before the drop they were expecting. That’s
(D): evidence of Herculina having a satellite was
provided by “the occultation that occurred shortly
before the predicted occultation by Herculina.”
(A) First, the secondary body’s presence was “strongly
indicated,” not “directly observed.” Second, what’s
important is the fact that a second body also eclipsed
the star.
(B) is outside the scope. The passage says nothing about
a planet near Herculina.

(C) is also outside the scope. The author never discusses
the amount of time needed to complete an orbit.
(E) The occultation of Herculina itself is irrelevant; the
evidence for the existence of a satellite was provided
by the secondary occultation.
3. (A)
The attitude of astronomers since the Herculina event
is discussed in paragraphs 4 and 5. Paragraph 4 says
the Herculina event made secondar y sightings
“respectable”—i.e many astronomers came to accept
the possible existence of asteroid-satellite systems.
Paragraph 5 indicates that even astronomers who are
still doubters would be convinced by the right kind of
evidence. As (A) puts it, astronomers who were
skeptical of the existence of asteroid-satellites have
become more open-minded, although many are still
awaiting proof.
(B) describes the attitude of many astronomers prior to
the Herculina event.
(C) There’s no “chaotic mix of theory” relating to
asteroid satellites; paragraph 1 indicates that a single,
simple theory supports their existence. Further, the
passage doesn’t say that any data is “spurious.”
(D) is too negative. Many astronomers already believe
that asteroid satellites exist. The skeptics are merely
looking for one particular kind of evidence; they aren’t
rejecting “all data not recorded automatically by state-
of-the-art instruments.”
(E) There’s nothing in the passage about admiration
for the scientific process, nor has there been
“incontrovertible proof” of anything.
4. (C)
(C) gets to the heart of the matter. The first sentence
of paragraph 4 says that after the Herculina event
secondary occultations became “‘respectable’—and
more commonly reported.” This implies that before the
Herculina event secondar y occultations weren’t
considered respectable, and so weren’t commonly
reported.
(A) Au contraire. Paragraph 1 indicates that a good
theoretical model of asteroid-satellite systems did
exist prior to the Herculina event.
(B) The author never implies that satellite collisions
were mistaken for occultations. There’s no speculation
on what, other than an actual satellite, might have
occasioned the rare repor ted obser vations of
secondary events before the Heruclina event.
(D) Prior to the Herculina event, it wasn’t even
respectable to report secondary events. The issue of
Section III: Reading Comprehension
what constitutes a “well-behaved” event only arises
later (in Paragraph 5).
(E) Au contraire aussi. Prior to the Herculina event, it
wasn’t respectable to report the observation of a
secondary event.
5. (D)
Paragraph 4 says that repor ts of secondar y
occultations grew so common after the Herculina event
that they’re now too numerous for all to be correct.
Why? Because even if every asteroid has the highest
plausible number of satellites, “only one in every
hundred primary occultations would be accompanied
by a secondary event.” So (D) must be correct: Since
the Herculina event, reports of secondary events have
been occurring at a rate greater than this maximum
plausible rate of one in every one hundred cases.
(A) and (C) simply can’t be concluded based on the
passage’s information. We don’t know how many
repor ts of primar y occultations have included
secondar y occultations, or how many reports of
secondary occultations there are or were, so we can’t
calculate the increase of either.
(B) distorts the last parenthetical clause of paragraph
4, which describes what would be the case if asteroid-
satellite systems resembled planet-satellite systems,
not what is in fact the case on actual reports of
secondary occultations.
(E) is beyond the scope. The passage never mentions
any repor t containing more than one secondar y
occultation.
6. (C)
(C) is right on the money: the author’s primary purpose
is to trace the development of ideas among
astronomers concerning the existence of asteroid-
satellite systems.
(A) Much of the passage describes how reporting
“secondary occultations” has become respectable.
(B) deals only with information in paragraph 5. Moreover,
(B)’s distinction between “spurious” and “theoretically
believable” observations isn’t made in the passage.
(D) The author isn’t trying to bring a “theoretician’s
perspective” to the discussion; instead, he’s primarily
interested in how experimental results enlighten the
disucssion.
(E) is easy to eliminate, because it never even
mentions asteroid satellites. Moreover, there’s no
attempt to limit speculation about occultation.
17
PrepTest 3 Explained

7. (C)
Based on paragraph 5, you can expect the answer to
have something to do with the photoelectric record. (C)
would provide the hard physical evidence we need; a
photoelectric record of a “well-behaved” secondary
event is exactly what skeptical astronomers say “would
change their minds.”
(A) The existence of such early reports is only hinted
at, and the clear implication is that nobody took them
very seriously.
(B) The author never implies that there’s anything
wrong with the original theoretical model.
(D) is just a more refined abstraction — it doesn’t
constitute the kind of physical proof needed to resolve
the question.
(E) distorts the passage’s final sentence, which
suggests that airplanes passing in front of the
instruments might be responsible for some
observations of secondary events.

18

Passage 2: 17th-Century Scientific
Discovery
Questions 8–15
Topic and Scope: Scientific experimentation in 17th-
centur y England; specifically, who per formed
experiments and why.
Purpose and Main Idea: The author seeks to show how
the social prejudices and scientific views of 17th-
century English scientists led them to leave much of
their lab work to technicians, and prevented them from
giving technicians the proper credit for their work.
Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 states that a
distinction must be made between the way scientific
experimentation was described by 17th-century English
scientists and the way it was actually performed. In
theory, 17th-century scientists believed that experiments
should be performed by the scientists themselves,
without relying on others for assistance. Yet, as
paragraph 2 makes clear, scientists often did not act in
accordance with their beliefs. As the example of Robert
Boyle shows, many of them were aided in their
experiments by paid technicians whose contributions
went unacknowledged.
Paragraph 3 gives three reasons why the role of
technicians was unacknowledged: (1) the belief that
scientific breakthroughs occur as a result of flashes of
insight on the part of brilliant individuals rather than
through group efforts; (2) the fact that 17th-century
English scientists were members of the upper class
who held the manual labor done by their technicians in
disdain; and (3) the tendency to disregard as unreliable
the input of the wage-slave technicians.
The Big Picture:
• Since topic, scope, and purpose all appear in the
first sentence, this passage is another candidate
to be worked on early in the section.
• Keywords can help you negotiate a passage
easily. The long third paragraph is neatly divided
by keywords. The question at the beginning
introduces the paragraph’s focus, and the three
answers given are clearly marked by the words
“one reason,” “moreover,” and “finally.”
Section III: Reading Comprehension
The Questions:
8. (C)
(C) covers the gist of the passage. The author explains
how much of 17th-century experimental work was
performed by technicians, and how that work was
denigrated and distrusted for the reasons discussed in
paragraph 3.
(A) ignores the major concern of the passage: why
technicians’ contributions were overlooked. Moreover,
the passage never implies that scientific experiments
would have been absolutely impossible without the aid
of technicians.
(B) distorts the passage. Lab workers, as salaried
employees, belonged to a lower social caste.
(D) is outside the scope. The passage never discusses
the relationship between 20th-century scientists and
their technicians.
(E) focuses on a detail.
9. (E)
Seventeenth-centur y rhetoric about scientific
experimentation emphasized the idea that scientists
should do their own experiments. Hence, that rhetoric
would have more accurately described the work
conducted in Boyle’s lab if Boyle himself had actually
done his own experiments.
(A) would contradict seventeenth-century rhetoric by
having Boyle admit that he relied on others.
(B) According to the passage, contempt for manual
labor was characteristic of seventeenth-centur y
scientists.
(C) Membership in the Royal Society alone wouldn’t
determine whether or not Boyle performed experiments
according to the rhetoric of the day.
(D) focuses on the wrong issue. The rhetoric in question
was about scientists per forming all their own
experiments, not about acknowledging technicians;
acknowledging technicians is an issue raised by the
author.
10. (C)
The “franchise” and it’s relation to ser vants is
discussed in the middle of paragraph 3, where it’s said
that ser vants were excluded from the franchise
because, as wage earners, they were thought to be
controlled by their employers. In other words, as (C)
says, their political independence was thought to be
compromised.
19
PrepTest 3 Explained
(A) Servants weren’t excluded because their interests
were already represented, but because it was believed
that they would blindly support the political positions of
the employers who paid their wages.
(B), (D), and (E) are outside the scope. Nowhere does
the passage state or imply that ser vants were
inadequately educated (B), a polarizing force (D), or
insufficient contributors to society (E).
11. (D)
In the middle of Paragraph 1, we’re told that the Royal
Society of London endorsed the notion that doing
menial work in the cause of science was a good thing.
As (D) puts it, the Society advocated abandoning the
traditional upper class ethic against per forming
manual labor—at least as far as science was
concerned.
(A) and (E) are au contraire choices. Pararagraph 1
explicitly says that, as far as the Royal Society of
London was concerned, the willigness of scientists to
do their own manual labor was part of an attempt to
discover God’s truth in nature (A), as well as a
demonstration of piety (E).
(B) and (C) touch on issues which the Royal Society
didn’t address. The Society never asked scientists to
abandon the individualistic view of scientific
breakthroughs (B) or the view that wage-dependent
servants shouldn’t vote (C). In fact, based on the
information in the passage, it’s quite likely that the
upper class Royal Society would have endorsed these
views.
12. (A)
The second sentence of paragraph 3 indicates that
both the seventeenth and twentieth centuries share
the view that scientific discoveries result from the
sudden insights of a small number of brilliant
individuals, rather than from the cooperative efforts of
many people.
(B) is outside the scope. There’s nothing in the passage
about either seventeenth or twentieth century views of
the connection between political values and scientific
method.
(C) and (D) are out because, while the beliefs that
research undertaken for pay couldnt be objective (C)
and that scientific discovery could reveal divine truth
(D) were indeed both held in the seventeenth century,
the passage says nothing about twentieth-century
beliefs concerning these things.
20
(E) states a position that certainly wasn’t endorsed in
the seventeenth century (and may not be widely
endorsed in the twentieth century, for all we know).
13. (D)
Paragraph 3 begins by asking why the role of
technicians wasn’t acknowledged by 17th-centur y
scientists, an issue introduced in Paragraph 2. It then
answers this question by discussing three factors that
contributed to the failure to acknowledge the role of
technicians.
(A) The question isn’t posed in the previous
paragraph, nor is only one of several alternative
answers adopted.
(B) None of the factors discussed in paragraph 3 is
rejected.
(C) The explanations discussed aren’t incompatible—
the factors in paragraph 3 are shown as working
together.
(E) Paragraph 3’s explanation doesn’t rest on recent
research, but is based on the author’s interpretation of
seventeenth-century English society.
14. (A)
In introducing the political significance of the wage
relationship, the author makes the point that workers
dependent upon the wages of their employers simply
weren’t considered reliable, whether in political
judgments or in scientific research. As (A) says, the
author puts the scientists’ failure to acknowledge the
contributions of technicians in the context of general
worker-employer relations.
(B) is outside the scope. The author offers no general
thesis about the relationship between scientific
discovery and economic conditions.
(C) goes against the gist of the passage, which is that
seventeenth-century scientists relied on technicians to
do much more than simply the most menial tasks.
(D) is also outside the scope. The author doesn’t
discuss political or economic changes in seventeenth-
century England.
(E) The author doesn’t tie the wage relationship to the
nature of scientific discovery, but to the attitude of
scientists towards technicians.
 Section III: Reading Comprehension

15. (D)
As we’ve already seen, the rhetoric of seventeenth-
century English science concerned the idea of doing
hands-on research. What was the rhetoric? That
scientists should conduct, observe, and analyze their
own experiments.
(A) The myth about how discoveries were thought to
occur is a general trend discussed by the author, not a
subject of seventeenth-century rhetoric.
(B) Au contraire. Seventeenth-centur y scientific
rhetoric emphasized the importance of doing manual
labor in the cause of science.
(C) Seventeenth-century scientists failed to acknowledge
the contributions of their technicians. The scientific
rhetoric of the time never addressed that issue.
(E) Though scientists like Boyle did believe in the
search for divine truth in nature, the “rhetoric”
discussed in the passage concerned only the
importance of manual labor in research.

21
PrepTest 3 Explained
Passage 3: Monopoly Power
Questions 16–20
Topic and Scope: Monopoly power; specifically, the
difference between the possession of monopoly power,
which isn’t illegal, and the abuse of monopoly power,
which is.
Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to
describe what sort of exercises of monopoly power are
considered violations of federal antitrust laws. Since
this is a descriptive passage, there really isn’t a
specific main idea.
Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 explains that the
possession of monopoly power is not in itself illegal; to
violate antitrust laws, a company must abuse
monopoly power by using it to exclude competition.
Paragraph 2 explains how monopoly power comes
about: Companies with a large market share can raise
prices above competitive levels without losing
customers. Paragraph 3 explains why the mere
possession of monopoly power isn’t illegal: Tighter
laws might pose disincentives to the growth of
monopolies and impair consumers’ welfare. Paragraph
4 describes the types of exclusionary practices which
constitute abuse.
Paragraph 5 reiterates a point made earlier—that, in
the interests of consumer welfare, antitrust laws focus
on the abuse rather than the possession of monopoly
power.
The Big Picture:
• Be on the lookout for passages that contrast two
or more entities: the possession vs. the abuse of
monopoly power, for instance. Such passages
always have questions that hinge on a clear
understanding of the difference between the
entities being compared.
• You don’t have to assimilate all of the details to
do well on this passage. The important thing is to
understand the basics of monopoly power—
what’s illegal (abuse), what’s not (possession)
and why (consumer welfare).
22
The Questions:
16. (E)
Paragraph 5 says that antitrust laws focus on abuse of
monopoly power rather than possession of it in order to
protect consumers’ welfare. So we can infer (E): that
the abuse of monopoly power is prohibited because it
impairs consumer welfare, whereas possession
doesn’t necessarily hurt consumers.
(A) The author doesn’t make a legal distinction
between market share and market control.
(B) The author never suggests that monopoly power is
easier to demonstrate than abuse.
(C) In the first paragraph, abuse of monopoly power is
defined as the exclusion of competition “in the
monopolized market or related markets,” so it needn’t
involve more than one market.
(D) Paragraph 3 says that charging supracompetitive
prices doesn’t by itself constitute an abuse of
monopoly power.
17. (E)
At the beginning of paragraph 4, leverage is described
as “the use of power in one market to reduce
competition in another,” a strategy which is clearly
characterized as abuse in paragraphs 1 and 4.
(A) Au contraire. We’re told that the manipulation of
related markets constitutes abuse, even though these
secondary markets aren’t monopolized.
(B) “Tying arrangements” are presented as an example
of leverage strategy, and all leverage strategies are
considered abuses by the author.
(C) Au contraire aussi. The use of monopoly power in
itself doesn’t constitute abuse.
(D) A company using leverage would still violate antitrust
laws, even if it was charging competitive prices.
18. (D)
The passage as a whole revolves around the distinction
between possession of monopoly power and its abuse.
In the third paragraph, the author brings up a number
of cases where companies that possess monopoly
power use it legally. The author is clarifying how far
companies can legally exercise monopoly power. As (D)
puts it, the author is distinguishing what is covered by
the antitrust laws from what isn’t.
(A) is outside the scope. There’s no mention of
supracompetitive profits in the passage, if indeed such
profits exist.
 Section III: Reading Comprehension

(B) distorts the passage. We’re told how far companies
can exercise monopoly power without breaking the law,
a quite different thing from describing positive uses of
monopoly power.
(C) focuses on a detail, not the main purpose of the
paragraph.
(E) doesn’t really emerge until paragraph 5; it’s by no
means the central idea of paragraph 3.
(D) dredges up the idea of “supracompetitive” profits,
which aren’t mentioned anywhere in the passage.
(E) also goes against the gist of the paragraph.
Restraints on monopoly haven’t been left to the
market, but rather have been enforced by antitrust laws.

19. (B)
Essentially the lawmakers’ attitude toward monopoly is
that some methods of reducing competition are
legitimate, and some aren’t.The point of the passage,
after all, is to distinguish between legal and illegal
forms of monopoly. Paragraphs 2 and 3 center around
the extent to which companies can exercise monopoly
power without violating antitrust laws. Paragraphs 4
and 5, on the other hand, focus on uses of monopoly
power that are prohibited by antitrust laws.
(A) Au contraire. At the end of paragraph 3, we’re told
that monopolist companies can be allowed to grow at
the expense of competition in the interests of
consumers’ welfare.
(C) The author says that consumer welfare is the
principle aim of the antitrust laws.
(D) Au contraire aussi. According to paragraph 2, when
close substitutes for a product are available,
competition benefits from a company that charges
supracompetitive prices.
(E) Since the existence of monopolies is considered
better for consumer welfare under cer tain
circumstances, lawmakers presumably wouldn’t agree
that competition is necessary to supply high-quality
products at low prices.

20. (A)
The author’s point in the final paragraph is that the
legal distinction between possession of monopoly
power and its abuse is based on a desire to promote
consumer welfare. We want a choice that’s relevant to
this idea. (A) fits the bill by picking up the consumer-
welfare-based distinction between abuse and
possession of monopoly power, and explaining that
monopoly power can sometimes be in the consumers’
best interests.
(B) goes against the gist of the last paragraph. The
author believes that antitrust laws have been effective
in securing the consumers’ best interests.
(C) is outside the scope. It focuses on two particular
industries that haven’t been mentioned anywhere.

23
PrepTest 3 Explained
Passage 4: Navaho Blankets
Questions 21–28
Topic and Scope: Navajo weaving; specifically, the
different styles of Navaho rug weaving and how they
developed.
Purpose and Main Idea: The author describes a
theory—Amsden’s theory about Navajo weaving styles
and how they evolved—and then calls that theory into
question.
Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 introduces
Amsden’s view of Navajo weaving styles: three of them
are banded with stripes, zigzags, or diamonds, while
the fourth style is quite different, a border surrounding
central figures. Paragraph 2 explains that Amsden
believes that there’s some Anglo influence in the
diamond style, but the most Anglo influence appears in
the bordered style. Paragraph 3 gives the meat of
Amsden’s argument: he believes that the bordered rug
represents a radical break with previous styles, and
that the very fact of the border changed the way Navajo
weavers designed rugs.
Paragraph 4 begins the author’s criticsm of Amden’s
theory: “Amsden’s view raises several questions.”
First question: what is involved in altering artistic
styles? The author concludes that in the case of
weaving, there’s no radical change in motor habits or
thought processes. Paragraph 5 raises the second
question: what’s the relationship between banded and
bordered styles? The author contends that the break in
style isn’t a break in psychology, but a result of the
ar tist’s quest for invention. Finally, Paragraph 6
questions the idea that there really is a stylistic gap
between banded and bordered styles.
The Big Picture:
• When more than one view is presented, you need
to be clear about the distinctions between or
among the different points of view. The questions
will certainly test to see that you’ve grasped the
differences.
• Notice how neatly this passage is arranged. The
first three paragraphs describe Amsden’s views,
while the last three—beginning at line 28—
supply the author’s critique of Amsden.
24
The Questions:
21. (E)
This choice captures the passage’s focus on Amsden’s
views of Navajo weaving styles and the author’s
critique of those views.
(A) is outside the scope. The author never suggests
that the Navajo rejected all Anglo cultural influence.
(B) distor ts the author’s criticism. The author
questions Amsden’s account of how the styles
developed, but doesn’t reject Amsden’s categorization
of the styles.
(C) focuses on a detail. It plays on an idea that the
author puts forth in paragraph 5.
(D) is outside the scope as well. It doesn’t even
mention Navajo weaving, Amsden, or the author.
22. (A)
The author mentions the strips of color breaking
through the enclosed border as evidence of Navajo
distaste for the Anglo preference that graphic designs
have a top, bottom, and border. (A) paraphrases this
sentiment, albeit in abstract language.
(B) Amsden depicts the strips of color as signs of
general Navaho abhorrence for borders, not
necessarily an “echo” of the diamond style.
(C) Au contraire. For Amsden, the strips of color
bursting through the border reflect resistance to Anglo
culture.
(D) According to Amsden, the Navajo resisted the
bordered style, not the banded style.
(E) The desire for designs with a top, bottom, and
border is presented as an Anglo desire.
23. (C)
(C) captures the author’s view as it is expressed in
paragraphs 5 and 6. The author thinks that the
bordered style gradually evolved from the banded style
not necessarily as a result of Anglo influence, as
Amsden believed, but as a result of Navajo
experimentation with design and the artistic quest for
invention.
(A) In mentioning the Chief White Antelope blanket at
the end of the passage, the author suggests that the
diamond style pre-dated the arrival of the Anglos.
(B) is outside the scope. There’s no evidence of what
the author thinks is “generally” the case when two
cultures occupy the same region.

(D) is also outside the scope. Nothing in this passage
suggests that non-Anglo cultures influenced Navajo
weaving.
(E) Saying that vertical arrangements of diamond
parts “anticipated the border” isn’t the same as saying
that “rows” of horizontal and vertical diamonds were
“transformed into solid lines” to create the border.
24. (D)
What happened in 1890? The bordered style appeared.
So, you’re looking for the choice that’s not characteristic
of pre-1890 weavings—i.e., that’s uniquely
characteristic of the bordered style. The bordered style
used isolated figures (paragraph 1), while pre-1890
weavings used continuous patterns (paragraph 3).
(A) Paragraph 3 says that the old patterns alternated
decorations like stripes, zigzags, or diamonds in a
regular order—that’s a “repetition of forms.”
(B) Early Navajo rugs were continuous, with overall
patterns rather than isolated figures.
(C) and (E) According to paragraph 1, “horizontal bands”
and “color” were used in early styles.
25. (D)
The author accepts Amsden’s classification that
Navajo weavings used horizontal bands of abstract
designs early on, and later moved on to isolated figures
(when the bordered style was adopted); but differs
from Amsden in arguing that the change was gradual,
not a radical break.
(A) In Paragraph 4, the author suggests that motor
habits and thought processes have little application to
Navajo weaving.
(B) Neither the author nor Amsden attributes the zigzag
style to Anglo influences.
(C) Au contraire. The figures came later.
(E) Also au contraire. Only the border style is said
routinely to contain isolated figures.
26. (C)
The author’s main point of issue with Amsden concerns
the claim about Anglo influence. The author’s objections
occur in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. The author’s basic
point here is that Amsden has overlooked some
things—the nature of weaving, the artists’ quest for
invention, the existence of intermediate forms—that
suggest that the bordered style may have arisen without
Anglo evidence. As (C) says, the author thinks that
Amsden fails to consider certain aspects of Navajo
weaving in making his claim.
Section III: Reading Comprehension
(A) is clearly incorrect because Amsden sees little or
no correspondence between Anglo and Navajo art.
Rather, he views the two styles as radically different.
(B) is outside the scope. The author never discusses
Amsden’s feeling about Anglo culture.
(D) The author doesn’t criticize Amsden for basing his
theories on a limited number of weaving specimens.
(E) is also outside the scope. There is no suggestion
that Amsden has confused the features of the zigzag
and diamond styles.
27. (B)
In the final paragraph, the author makes the point that
some stylistic changes that led the way to the border
style can’t be attributed to Anglo influence, and uses
the Chief White Buffalo blanket as an example to
illustrate this point.
(A) Au contraire. The Chief White Antelope blanket
argues against the influence of Anglo culture on the
bordered style.
(C) Au contraire, too. The author says that the
ver tically arranged diamonds in the Chief White
Antelope blanket anticipate the border. Moreover, this
blanket has a “flowing design,” not a central design.
(D) The Chief White Antelope blanket questions the
idea of Anglo influence.
(E) This blanket seems to illustrate innovation within
the diamond style.
28. (B)
Paragraphs 1 through 3 describe Amsden’s view about
how the bordered Navajo weaving style developed.
Paragraphs 4 through 6 question that view. Thus, this
choice accurately sums up the passage’s primary
concern.
(A) Although the passage does compare different
weaving styles—the banded and the bordered—the
central concern is not to compare the styles, but to
question a view regarding the development of these
styles.
(C) is outside the scope. The passage never proposes
new methods of investigation.
(D) This choice focuses on a detail. While the author
does discuss the influence of Anglo style on Navajo
weaving, that’s done only in order to question
Amsden’s explanation of how the bordered style
evolved.
(E) The author’s focus is on the evolution of a style.
The interaction between two cultures is an idea of
Amsden’s.
25
PrepTest 3 Explained
SECTION IV:
LOGICAL REASONING
1. (D)
The only way for a violin to play recognizably the same
music as the piano is for the violinist to keep the
nature and possibilities of his instrument in mind, and
to try to suit the original composition to the new
instrument. Since the two different instruments are
intended to be analogous to the two different
languages, the point of the argument must be that
translation from one language to another can only be
achieved if the translator does not simply try to copy
the original exactly, but is also guided by the innate
possibilities and limitations of the new language.
(A) No; by the very nature of the analogy, the author is
implying that poetry tranlation is possible, so long as
the translation is guided by the nature of the language
it’s translated into.
(B) attempts to confuse the issue by combining the
two elements of the analogy, music and poetry, byt the
argument is not even remotely concerned whether
some languages are more or less musical, and hence
more or less poetic, than others. It also strays from the
scope, translation.
(C) also tries to combine poetry with musical qualities
like rhythm and sound patterns, therefore confusing
the purpose of the analogy, which isn’t included to
convince us that poetry should be like music, but
rather to suggest that similar factors that influence
musical translation may also influence poetr y
translation.
(E) is plainly outside the scope of the argument, which
never debates the relative difficulty of translating
philosophical insights or subjective impressions.
2. (C)
According to the author, if a student’s understanding of
a subject consisted only of knowing facts and rules,
then computers might well eventually replace human
teachers as drill masters and coaches. However, a
student’s understanding also consists of having a
grasp of the general concepts underlying them. The
author concludes that the computer will not eventually
replace the teacher, obviously assuming that
computers can’t teach these general concepts along
with the facts and rules. (C) undermines the argument
by attacking this assumption.
26
(A) asserts that computers are as good as teachers in
drilling students on rules and facts, and (D) goes one
step further and says that they’re better. The author
freely admits that computers would be capable of
replacing teachers if that’s all there is to it, but argues
that computers fall short because learning requires a
grasp of underlying concepts as well.(B) Au-contraire;
this actually supports the argument by stating that the
teacher’s essential task is to make students
understand the general concepts behind specific facts
and rules—exactly what the author claims computers
are not able to do.
(E), if anything, supports the argument, because the
author implies that drills and coaching are the
computer’s strong point.
3. (C)
Here’s the reasoning: If city council spending (X)
remains the same, then the sales tax (Y) can be
expected to be at a certain level. Therefore, if the sales
tax (Y) is higher than the predicted level, then it will be
because city council spending (X) increased. This
element of causation throws a kink into the logic. The
contrapositive of the first sentence is “If the sales tax
is not 2%, then city council didn’t maintain spending at
the same level.” The higher tax mentioned in the
second sentence could be the result of other factors; it
need not be caused by an increase in expenditures. (C)
most closely parallels this, complete with the logical
flaw: If workers’ wages (X) aren’t increased, then the
prices charged for goods (Y) will remain at the level it
was at last year. Therefore, if the prices (Y) rise beyond
the predicted level, then it will be because the workers’
wages (X) also increased.
(A) begins with a premise relating the cost of house-
building to the price of houses, but goes on to try to
deduce something about builders attempting to sell a
greater number of houses, which is a completely new
idea.
(B) also complicates things by introducing the idea of
reduced profits due to shoplifting, a third term in the
argument.
(D) Much like in (B), (D)’s conclusion bears no
resemblance to the stimulus conclusion, since it
introduces the totally new idea of improved services, a
third term not found in the original.
(E) is concerned with qualitative terms, whereas the
stimulus was concerned with quantitative terms. (E)
also drags a new consideration, newspaper circulation,
into its conclusion.

4. (D)
Good deeds are beneficial to the immune system of the
person who does them. White blood cells are needed
to fight infection, and magnanimous behavior causes
the brain to produce chemicals that stimulate and aid
the activity of these white blood cells. We are therefore
safe in inferring that magnanimous behavior is
beneficial to one’s own interests.
(A) The stimulus says nothing about what constitutes
a good deed, or what sort of motives are required for a
deed to be truly “good.”
(B) While it’s claimed that magnanimous behavior
helps the immune system, we can hardly say that lack
of magnanimity actually causes most serious illnesses.
(C) is way off. Magnanimity produces the chemicals;
not the other way around.
(E)’s a distor tion — the stimulus said only that
magnanimity will stimulate the activity of white blood
cells, so we can’t infer that it will produce new ones.
5. (C)
The author concludes that if production costs for
operas were lowered, then operas would no longer
need corporate sponsorship, but instead could be
privately financed; as a result, ticket buyers would be
able to see a wider variety of operas, instead of just the
most famous ones. (C) destroys this wishful thinking.
If, without corporate support, opera companies could
still afford to produce only the most famous operas,
the argument falls apart.
(A) subtly strengthens the argument, by opening up the
possibility that people would be willing to pay to see
little known operas as opposed to famous ones.
(B) The argument isn’t affected in the least if
corporate sponsors still wish to support opera, the
whole issue centers on what will happen without
corporate sponsorship.
(D) The author’s whole point is to produce the operas
without corporate sponsorship, so this piece of info
has no bearing on the argument.(E) We can infer that
the author has already thought of this, which is why her
plan involves cutting production costs in order to
produce operas without corporate support.
6. (A)
The sentence “at the same time that the clock opened
up some avenues, it closed others” gives it away; it
introduces the notion of something having both a
liberating and a restricting effect. Since we’re looking
for a proposition (a generality) illustrated by this
example, (A) fits the bill by expanding the author’s
Section IV: Logical Reasoning
observation about the double effect of clocks and
applying it to new machines in general.
(B) is never suggested, and besides, we’re looking for
a general concept that can be illustrated by the clock
example, not a recommendation of what to do.
(C) The clock example doesn’t match this at all, as it
illustrates that new technologies can improve our lives,
even those that also have a restricting effect.
(D) The author does not offer a final judgment about
clocks, and once again, since we’re looking for a
generally-stated proposition based on the clocks
example, any choice containing only a clocks-related
soundbite must be wrong.
(E) mistakenly takes a specific attribute of clocks, the
fact that they increase synchronization and
productivity, and attributes it to most machines. The
actual functioning of the clock, and the specific effects
it has (like adding synchronization), cannot be
generalized and applied to other machines, which may,
after all, have entirely different functions and effects.
7. (B)
The author of the argument has erroneously combined
the premises in the first two sentences and taken them
to mean that a person must practice three hours a day to
become an expert. This is a case of confusing necessity
with sufficiency. True, according to the second sentence,
three hours a day of practice will make someone an
expert eventually (i.e., it’s sufficient for expertise), but
nothing rules out the possibility of becoming an expert by
practicing less than three hours a day (i.e., three hours
a day is not necessary). According to the first sentence,
at least some practice is necessary, but just because
three hours a day will ensure expertise doesn’t mean
that someone couldn’t acquire expert status with only
one hour of practice a day.
(A) We’re told that a person who practices three hours
a day will eventually become an expert—it therefore
doesn’t matter if someone who practices three hours a
day is not yet considered an expert.
(C) is the contrapositive of the conclusion, and therefore
makes the same error that the conclusion makes, that
of assuming that one must practice three hours a day
to become an expert.
(D) The argument doesn’t specify that the practice
hours must be consecutive, so the fact that some
music teachers may frown on this notion is irrelevant.
(E) also brings up an irrelevant consideration—the
argument focuses the practice requirements that will
lead to expertise. How many or how few people have
this kind of time on their hands is outside the scope.
27
PrepTest 3 Explained
8. (E)
First, define the unexpected finding. There’s
“incontestable proof” that safety seats will reduce the
number of serious injuries sustained by children in car
accidents, yet a large number of children who are riding
in safety seats continue to receive the serious injuries
that the seats were specifically designed to prevent,
and have been proven to be effective in preventing. If,
as (E) says, safety seats must be used properly in
order for them to afford protection, and if parents are
failing to use them properly, then it’s easily conceivable
for children riding in safety seats to still suffer serious
injuries.
(A) and (C) are wrong for the same reason: Both
supposed explanations ignore the fact that the
unexpected finding centers around children who are
actually in the seats receiving injuries.
(B) More children making automobile trips doesn’t
bring us any closer to understanding the mysterious
failure of the seats to perform the function for which
they were designed, and for which they have been
proven effective.
(D) This one also explains nothing—it ignores the fact
that children are sustaining the very injuries that the
seats were designed to prevent.
9. (A)
Since both the willingness to make fun of oneself and
the willingness to allow others to do so are evidence of
a self-confident person, we can infer that people who
aren’t self-confident aren’t likely to enjoy being made
fun of, either by themselves or by others. (A) implies
that no one who lacks self-confidence will enjoy being
made fun of, which may at first seem like a stronger
statement than the argument can definitely support.
However, the phrase “the surest mark” is meant to
indicate that telling funny stories or jokes about
oneself is tantamount to being self-confident; in other
words, if you tell funny stories or jokes about yourself,
then you are self-confident. (A) is the contrapositive of
this. Even if you don’t see eye to eye with this logic, as
some may not, (A) is still the best of the bunch, and
very much in line with the gist of the argument.
(B) Beyond the scope—the passage talks about other
people making fun of self-confident people, but says
nothing about the reverse scenario.
(C) and (E) are also beyond the scope. There’s no way
for us to infer the reason behind the stated correlation
(C); that is, why self-confident people put themselves
down. And the reason why anyone tells jokes about
28
other people in their presence (what choice (E)
discusses) is never discussed.
(D) We have no idea who “most people” are, or what
they would prefer.
10. (E)
This one’s fairly complex, but your best bet is to follow
the cause-and-effect relationships and make
deductions as if they represented Logic Games rules.
Only one of the choices can’t be deuced from the
“rules” of this stimulus, and it turns out to be (E): We
know that if there’s a decrease in atmospheric carbon,
there’s a decrease in atmospheric heat. We cannot
infer the opposite: If there’s a decrease in atmospheric
heat, there may or may not be a decrease in
atmospheric carbon.
(A), (D) Straight from the passage: A decrease in
atmospheric carbon leads to a decrease in atmosphere
heat, which results in decreased evaporation of sea
water. The decreased evaporation of sea water results
in less rain, which means less carbon being washed
into the seas.
(B) If the amount of carbon in the atmosphere
increases, then the atmosphere holds more heat. This
increased heat in turn results in increased evaporation
of sea water. Put ‘em together, and we get (B):
increased carbon in the atmosphere means increased
evaporation of sea water.
(C) More of the same process: Increased heat leads to
increased evaporation of sea water, which leads to
increased rainfall.
11. (E)
The author concludes that environmentalists are wrong
to worry about increased carbon levels due to the
burning of fossil fuels, because nature will continually
adjust the carbon level. However, if, as choice (E)
states, the adjustment process works very slowly,
allowing wide short-term fluctuations in the carbon
level, then it’s conceivable that dangerous or even
lethal levels of carbon can build up, thus severely
weakening the author’s argument: the
environmentalists would be right to worry.
(A), (C) The author doesn’t debate the necessity of
carbon, she merely argues that nature takes care of the
carbon level by itself, and that the environmentalists
should chill.
(B) Some may feel that this weakens the author’s
concession in the last sentence, but even if it did, that
sentence is basically a tangential point that has little to

do with the logic of the argument, which deals with
nature’s regulation of the carbon level. However, this
probably doesn’t even affect the author’s concession,
because that statement never said or implied that the
threat to humans of increased carbon levels would
come from breathing it in; it would likely be more
indirect, along the lines of the processes described.
(D) This is an irrelevant comparison that has no
bearing on the logic of the argument.
12. (E)
Based on the statistical evidence provided, the author
concludes that if American children are to become as
capable as their South Korean peers, they must watch
less television. The author doesn’t consider the
possibility that there are other reasons for this
difference in mathematical ability. Surely how much
television children watch isn’t the only difference
between lifestyles of South Korean and American
children. In making this claim, therefore, the author
assumes that other possible factors that could account
for the difference in math abilities don’t in fact play a
role. (E) zeros in on this assumption: it certainly would
seem that mathematical instruction would also be an
important factor in determining competence in math;
therefore, in concluding that less TV watching will help
improve U.S. childrens’ math abilities, the author must
assume that math instruction in America and South
Korea is of the same caliber.
(A) and (B), if true, both weaken the argument by
providing (and not discounting, as (E) does) other
explanations: lack of interest and discipline on the part
of American children compared with the South
Koreans. If these things are true, then the impact of TV
watching on the situation may be at best insignificant
and at worst irrelevant.
(C) The author’s conclusion, simply put, is based on a
necessary condition that underlies U.S. children’s
math success. The argument ends there; it stands
regardless of whether children will be motivated to
adopt this condition.
(D) The conclusion is stated in terms of watching
“less” TV; how much less is not addressed. This one
hour time frame appears out of nowhere, and the
author need not assume this for the conclusion to
stand. Remember, watching less TV is a necessary
condition, according to the author, but is not sufficient
for math success, so the author need not assume that
watching less than one hour of TV a day will guarantee
an increase in math ability.
Section IV: Logical Reasoning
13. (C)
The inference comes right out of the first sentence: If
the only way a bookstore can profitably sell books at
below market prices is to get the books at a discount
from publishers, then it certainly must be true that a
bookstore that is profitably selling books at below
market prices is getting discounts from publishers.
(A) and (B) both confuse necessity with sufficiency:
For (A), it’s necessary to receive discounts to sell at
below-market prices, but it’s not a guarantee. As for
(B), a high volume relies on either exclusive access or
a large specialized market (a necessary condition), but
neither of these things necessarily guarantees (i.e., is
sufficient) a high sales volume.
(D) The bookstore in this choice (one that doesn’t sell
books at below-market prices) is entirely outside of the
scope of the argument, so nothing can be inferred
about it.
(E) No; it’s quite possible that a bookstore with
exclusive access to a large specialized market that
also caters to mass tastes will be able to sell books at
a discount.
14. (D)
Because this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes, if it
does not have exclusive access, then it is impossible
for that store to generate the volume to get the
discounts that would allow the store to profitably sell
its books at below-market prices.
(A) could be true; all the store needs is exclusive
access to a large specialized market.
(B) can literally always be true; nothing forces
bookstores to sell at below-market prices, after all.
(C) is certainly true. Since this store doesn’t cater to
mass tastes, then either it has exclusive access to a
large specialized market, or it can kiss the volume, and
by extension, the discounts, goodbye.
(E) Since this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes, it’s
certainly possible that the store doesn’t have exclusive
access or the publisher’s discount.
15. (E)
Species have been coming and going long before
humans ever came along, and those who wish to blame
recent extinctions on human technology and its
consequent effects on the environment ignore the fact
that extinction is a natural process that would be going
on even if we were not around. In other words, the
author argues that the more recent extinctions are just
part of the same process that has been going on since
29
PrepTest 3 Explained
before the environment was harmed by technology.
However, she has failed to present any proof that the
more recently extinct species would have definitely
become extinct without our help.
(A) is mired in a scope shift—the author doesn’t argue
that technology has not harmed the environment in any
way; all she argues is that damage to the environment
didn’t cause extinctions which wouldn’t have otherwise
occurred naturally.
(B) The author isn’t ignoring this fact; it’s just not
important to her argument. These species aren’t
mentioned because they have no effect on her
argument, not because she erroneously overlooks
them.
(C) Once again, failing to consider something that has
nothing to do with your argument is not a reasoning
error. The existence of undiscovered species has no
bearing on the argument that extinction is natural.
(D) is a distortion of the author’s second statement.
She doesn’t identify a group of scientists that have this
theory, she just says that scientists, in general,
estimate that it’s the case.
16. (A)
If the public distrusts the media, believing that it might
be prejudiced, but they use information dispersed by
the media as fuel for that doubt, then it seems
probable that the public would find it difficult to detect
a wide-spread media bias. In other words, it would be
difficult to find an objective standard against which to
judge a media report.(A) is a rephrasing of that
thinking.
(B) The public may believe that the media is biased,
and the media may indeed be biased, but there’s no
evidence in the stimulus that there is a specific
political agenda at work.
(C) The author hasn’t even established that biases
actually exist, just that the public may have trouble
discerning media bias, if it even exists. The reasons for
the bias therefore cannot be a conclusion the author’s
moving towards.
(D) We’re only interested in the bias of the media and
the fact that the public would have a hard time seeing
it. Whether or not reporters hold the same view as their
public is immaterial. There’s also a scope shift here:
The “views” discussed in (D) don’t necessarily fall
under the category of “biases,” which is after all what
the stimulus talks about.
(E) We’re given no clues as to how the public would
respond to a scenario like this.
30
17. (D)
You should be able to pre-phrase a pretty close answer.
If no risky projects are decided upon in bureaucracies,
and the bureaucratic decision making involves “many
people,” then the author is likely assuming that
decisions to undertake risky projects are only made by
a single individual.
(A) Try the Denial Test: What if not all projects in a
bureaucracy involve risk? Does the argument suffer?
No; the conclusion is about the fate of risky projects,
but it doesn’t rely on the notion that all projects in a
bureaucracy involve risk—some may not without
affecting the logic of the argument.
(B) What “type” of people work in bureaucracies is
beyond the scope, and certainly not a crucial factor in
making this argument.
(C) contains a few scope shifts: First,taking risks may
be similar but is not necessarily the same thing as
under taking risky projects. Second, the choice
concerns an individual with decision making power,
whereas the stimulus indirectly refers to a situation
where a single individual has all of the power. If you’re
unsure, try the Denial Test again: It’s possible for an
individual with decision-making power to not take risks,
and for the conclusion to still remain valid.
(E) says that people take fewer risks when they’re
members of a group. But we need a statement that
implies that they take no risks when they’re part of a
bureaucracy. So while (E) may have initially appeared
tempting, it’s not strong or specific enough to allow the
argument’s conclusion to follow from the premises.
18. (E)
Three things are required in order to achieve the
physicalists’ goal: 1) a knowledge of the basic functions
of neurons; 2) a knowledge of how neurons interact;
and 3) a delineation of the psychological faculties to be
explained. At present, two of these things have already
been attained—we have knowledge of the basic
functions of neurons, and we understand the scope and
character of many psychological capacities. Therefore,
the author concludes, we can expect to achieve the goal
of explaining mental functions in neurobiological terms
in the near future. What happened to “a knowledge of
how neurons interact?” The flaw is that three things are
required to achieve a certain result, and the author
concludes that the result can be achieved even though
we only have two.
(A) The conclusion agrees with, not contradicts, the
physicalists.

(B) The author should not be expected to describe
“exactly what is currently known about the basic
functions of neurons.” We’re concerned only that that
knowledge is needed for the result, and that it currently
exists. The argument’s validity doesn’t rely on a
delineation of the specific mechanics involved.
(C)’s complaint, that the word “neurobiological” is used
as if it had the same meaning as “mental”, is the very
opposite of the truth. If the two words had been treated
as meaning the same thing from the beginning, the
argument would have been pointless. The point is that
ultimately all mental functions will be explainable in
neurobiological terms.
(D) Outside the scope; the argument isn’t concerned
with whether explaining mental functions in
neurobiological terms is useful, only that it will be
accomplished in the near future.
19. (D)
The author argues that the government can win back
the lost administrators by raising government salaries
to a level that is comparable with private sector
salaries. However, this is possible only if these
administrators will willingly change jobs again, and go
back to the government posts they left behind. If not,
the argument falls apart.
(A) The individuals in question are already experienced,
and the author feels that it is already worth the extra
money required for the government to “recapture”
them, so any new experience is not necessary to the
worth of this plan.
(B) We learn in the first sentence that these
administrators are both experienced and extremely
capable, and both of these qualities are important.
Competence can be the most important factor, as
opposed to experience, in determining how well
government agencies function, and the argument
would still be unaffected, which shows that this (B) is
not a necessary assumption on the part of the author.
(C) Try the Denial Test: The denial of (C) would be the
government taking no action and the gap in salaries
not increasing. This state of affairs does nothing to
damage the author’s proposal, which is about how to
recapture administrators who have already left.
(E) is the opposite of what is assumed. The argument
has said all along that the administrators are chasing
the big money. (E) would have them moving in large
numbers to the lower-paying (public) government jobs.
Section IV: Logical Reasoning
20. (C)
The politician and his opponents—those who want
more funding for low-income housing—agree that
homelessness is a serious social problem. They
disagree about how to solve it. Don’t worry yourself
with the obvious flaw in his argument. We aren’t asked
that. Focus on the phrase “homelessness is a serious
social problem;” it’s simply information that serves to
set up the argument, but actually does little more.
Understanding this allows should help you eliminate
choices that mistakenly ascribe special significance to
this statement, when in fact it’s little more than filler
material. And since the argument itself is based on
other pieces of evidence, this intro statement is
consistent with an acceptance or denial of the
conclusion.
(A) The statement is merely offered to frame the
argument; it’s not an alternative perspective to the one
the politician adopts.
(B) The politician doesn’t set out to solve the problem,
he sets out to refute a proposed solution.
(D) The politician admits that homelessness is a
serious problem; he’s certainly not trying to discredit
this position.
(E) It isn’t necessary for the politician’s conclusion.
His argument that the problem of homelessness can’t
be solved by providing more housing works just as well
if homelessness is a minor problem or no problem at all.
21. (B)
The reason that Thomas finds it incredible that such a
small dietary change could have such a drastic effect
on population is because he’s overlooked the fact that
overconsumption of eggs isn’t the only cause of death.
When Leona says that 5,000 lives might be saved, she
means that people who would otherwise have died
from an overconsumption of eggs would be spared.
Who’s to say that some of those people wouldn’t die
for some other reason? Therefore, an adequate
response from Leona would focus on the fact that the
numbers cited by her represent the number of people
who without the diet may have died, and with the diet
wouldn’t die, from eating too many eggs; however, she
never said that they wouldn’t die for some other
reason.
(A) and (D) discuss population growth (a major scope
shift), which neither clarifies Leona’s claim nor
addresses Thomas’s point. Neither person is claiming
the overall population would grow by 5,000 people per
year; Leona simply argues that 5,000 people who
31
PrepTest 3 Explained
would have died from eating too many eggs would not
die for this reason.
(C) is irrelevant, as it addresses what would happen if
egg consumption were cut by more than half, not by
half, which is the issue. Anyway, if Leona responded
with choice (C), she would only confuse poor Thomas
even more, because then his 50,000 figure, which he
thought was too high to begin with, would have to be
even higher.
(E) makes no sense as a response to Thomas. The
issue isn’t what individual consumers must do to
comply with this dietary change—it’s what will be the
result of the dietary change.
22. (B)
The key notion in this one is that only after that transfer
occurs can the new therapies help patients. The
inference turns out to be pretty straightforward. If the
new therapies can help patients only after they have
been transferred from the lab to the marketplace, then
they can’t possibly help patients before that.
(A) We don’t know that the FDA necessarily regulates
all therapeutic agents after they’ve been put on the
market. We’re only told that the FDA regulates the
actual introduction of these agents.
(C) All we’re told is that the research community
carries out a long process of discovery and testing. For
all we know, though, it’s the FDA that is responsible for
this—perhaps the agency requires the long testing
period.
(D) Maintaining the quality of therapeutic agents is a
new subject altogether, as is the issue of what the FDA
should, or shouldn’t, do.
(E) Here’s the necessary/sufficient thing again: Only
after a new drug has been introduced can it help
patients. That is not to say that it necessarily will help
patients.
23. (A)
The question stem introduces a conclusion that could
lead from this stimulus; that automobile theft has been
reduced by the program. We’re asked for the choice
that asks the question whose answer is most
important in evaluating that conclusion—that is, whose
answer is most likely to tell us whether or not the
conclusion is justified. Since the conclusion in the
stem is based on the fact that cars bearing the special
decals have a lower theft rate than other cars, we can
expect that the correct question will ask if there might
not be another reason that these cars aren’t being
32
stolen, besides the allegedly successful program
(there’s that “alternative explanation” concept popping
up again). (A) does this by asking if the car owners that
are likely to join the program owners take any other
special precautions to prevent theft. If the answer to
this question is yes, then perhaps the other measures,
not the program, are keeping the number of thefts
down, which would signify that the stem’s conclusion
that the program has reduced thefts is unwarranted.
(B), (E) How many neighborhoods the program is
operating in (A) and whether neighborhoods in which
the program took effect were a representative cross-
section of all neighborhoods, in terms of car types (E),
are both irrelevant. The conclusion only claims that the
program was successful in the neighborhoods where it
was actually applied.
(C) The program only takes effect between 1 A.M. and
5 A.M., so what happens during the daytime can have
nothing to do with the program. Moreover, the issue
here is the cars that weren’t stolen, and the reasons
why they weren’t stolen.
(D) While this certainly might be of some concern to
the owners, it doesn’t say much about the
effectiveness of the program. True, if the answer is
yes, it would indicate that the program is indeed
functioning, but doesn’t help us to evaluate its
effectiveness as well as (A) does, the answer of whih
could blow the conclusion out of the water.
24. (E)
Break the principle down to its essentials: An action is
morally good only if it 1) benefits another person and
2) was intended to benefit that other person. An action
is morally bad if it harms another person, and either 1)
such harm was intended or 2) a reasonable person
should have known that harm was likely to occur. The
only way to find the situation that matches the spirit of
this principle is to work through the choices, and
unfortunately, the testmakers buried the answer in
choice (E). Jonathan’s act of neglecting his three-year-
old niece caused harm to her, so it meets the first
criterion for a morally bad act. Although he intended no
harm, he should have realized that his failure to watch
his niece carefully was likely to lead to harm; (E)’s
judgment therefore conforms to the principle in the
stimulus.
(A) According to the stimulus, an action is only morally
bad if it actually causes harm—which the action in this
case did not.
 Section IV: Logical Reasoning

(B) Jeffrey’s action indirectly—and that’s the key

word—helped Sara. Since his action was performed
with the intention of securing his own promotion, not
with the intention of benefiting Sara, it fails the
stimulus’ test for a morally good action.
(C) Once again, we have an action that fails the
“morally good” test on the grounds that it doesn’t
benefit anyone (quite the opposite, no less).
(D) The homeless man was obviously harmed, which
puts Marilees’ action in the morally bad ballpark. But it
still needs to pass another test—the harm must be
inflicted intentionally, or the harmful result must be
foreseeable. Neither of these are met here (what are
the chances that someone will choke on a sandwich; it
was most likely the man’s own fault for talking and
chewing at the same time), so the judgment that
Marilees performed a morally bad action doesn’t
conform to the principle in the stimulus.

33
 1-800-KAP-TEST | kaptest.com

ÖLL3107Ayä
LL3107A

*LSAT is a registered trademark of the Law School Admission Council. Printed in USA ©2008 Kaplan, Inc.