1. This is a BIG PICTURE: PRIMARY PURPOSE question. We’re looking for a description of the passage’s purpose.
(A) The tone here is off; the passage focuses on Campbell’s failures.
(B) Conventional views aren’t discussed in the passage.
(C) The primary emphasis in the passage is less on a region than it is on a person and an era.
(D) Yes. This has the proper emphasis and tone.
(E) Laws are not the primary focus of this passage.
2. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. It seems to be referring to the end of the first paragraph.
(A) Yes. St. Catherine’s does provide an example of each of these.
(B) This is too strong. “Many” and “independent” are both overstatements of passage material.
(C) This is also too strong. Although it seems clear that some did, we aren’t told that most did.
(D) This is far too strong; nothing this positive took place.
(E) National government is not explicitly dealt with by the passage.
3. This is a STRUCTURE: FUNCTION question. We want the choice that matches our summary of the second paragraph.
(A) This choice is too broad. The paragraph describes only some of the developments that led to Campbell’s eventual failure.
(B) Yes. This is similar to (A), but it includes both a description of what St. Catherine’s was and limits its scope to just that part of Campbell’s story.
(C) This statement is too broad. The passage does not suggest that St. Catherine’s was the only instance of the attempted implementation of Sherman’s Order 15.
(D) The second paragraph shows an instance of a failed attempt to create an independent community of freed slaves, not an attempt to maintain freed slaves as an underclass.
(E) This is an overstatement. We don’t know that this was the only such effort.
4. This is a STRUCTURE: FUNCTION question. We’re looking for the choice that’s most consistent with passage material.
(A) This is an overstatement. It is not an example of slavery per se.
(B) The following statement about mortality rates, not the reference to money, does this.
(C) Yes. Although this isn’t by any means perfect, this choice is consistent with the passage’s tone.
(D) The passage doesn’t claim that Georgia profited from Campbell’s punishment—not monetarily, anyway.
(E) The author does not suggest a connection between the amount paid to the state and Campbell’s decision to return only once.
5. This is a REASONING question. Eliminate the four choices that lend additional support to the statement at hand, and pick the one that does not support it.
(A) This identifies a similarity between slavery and sharecropping: Conditions were terrible.
(B) This identifies a similarity between slavery and sharecropping: It was impossible to earn money with work under either system.
(C) This identifies a similarity between slavery and sharecropping: Education was very difficult to obtain.
(D) This identifies a similarity between slavery and sharecropping: Laws prevented workers from organizing to demand better conditions.
(E) Yes. This is the odd choice out; it identifies an improvement, however slight, in sharecropping over slavery.
6. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. Four of these answers will have direct passage support; the odd one out is the answer.
(A) This is stated in the passage’s third paragraph.
(B) This is stated in the passage’s third paragraph.
(C) Yes. This is the odd choice out. We aren’t told that absolutely no white legislators supported these measures.
(D) This is stated in the passage’s third paragraph.
(E) This is stated in the passage’s fourth paragraph.
7. This is an EXTRACT: RETRIEVAL question. The passage will provide answers to four of these questions; the fifth will be the answer.
(A) This question is answered in the second paragraph.
(B) This question is answered in the fourth paragraph.
(C) This question is answered in the third paragraph.
(D) Yes. This question is not answered in the passage.
(E) This question is answered in the third paragraph.
8. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. The correct answer will be directly supported by information in the passage.
(A) This is too strong; we aren’t told that Campbell was the only one.
(B) Yes. This is a reasonable statement of the passage’s main point.
(C) This is said nowhere in the passage.
(D) The weakness of state governments seems not to have been the problem.
(E) The tone here is off. The passage focuses on his eventual failure, not his successes.
9. This is a BIG PICTURE: MAIN POINT question. We’re looking for the main idea.
(A) The emphasis here is wrong; we’d like something that mentions prions and disease.
(B) Yes. This is a succinct statement of the passage’s contents.
(C) This is far too general.
(D) The emphasis here is wrong; the passage’s purpose is not to indicate that protein is absolutely necessary.
(E) Cures for these diseases are not discussed.
10. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. The reference is to the final sentence of the passage.
(A) According to the passage, this disease is not caused by a virus.
(B) Scrapie is a disease of sheep, not humans.
(C) Yes. This is consistent with the statement in question.
(D) Parasites are mentioned only briefly in the first paragraph.
(E) Abnormal genes are not discussed in the passage.
11. This is a STRUCTURE: ORGANIZATION question. We’re looking for the choice that best agrees with a paragraph-by-paragraph summary of the passage.
(A) No belief is rejected at the end of the passage.
(B) No further directions for study are recommended.
(C) Evidence against the prion hypothesis is never mentioned.
(D) Yes. This is the closest fit to the contents and structure of the passage.
(E) No argument against the mechanism is even mentioned.
12. This is a STRUCTURE: FUNCTION question. We’re looking for the answer that’s most consistent with the cited statement, which is in the second paragraph.
(A) Yes. The key is that sterilization in an autoclave destroys DNA and RNA.
(B) This is an overstatement of the passage’s identification of similarities among these diseases.
(C) This is inconsistent with the passage. Viruses, which are composed of DNA and RNA, would be destroyed by sterilization.
(D) This is not described in the passage as the conventional belief about them; note the word “only.”
(E) The mechanism of a prion’s action is not described until the following paragraph.
13. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. We’re looking for direct passage support of our answer.
(A) No other potential cause of disease is mentioned.
(B) This would contradict material in the third paragraph.
(C) The passage does not mention the possibility that prions may be either harmless or beneficial.
(D) This is too strong a conclusion to draw from the passage’s discussion of mad cow disease; note the word “most.”
(E) Yes. The passage mentions in the third paragraph that scrapie can develop spontaneously.
14. This is a REASONING question. We’re looking for something that’s similar to the mechanism described in the third paragraph, which describes the conversion of a normal into an abnormal, harmful form.
(A) This does not involve conversion from one thing to another.
(B) Like (A), this doesn’t include any kind of conversion.
(C) This talks about an individual changing her mind in the face of evidence; there is no sense of spreading or replication here.
(D) Yes. This talks about a pathological change caused by a single example and indicates that the change spreads from that individual.
(E) This does not describe a conversion or change.
Questions 15–20
15. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. Find the answer choice that provides a good substitute for the word polemical as it is used in the passage.
(A) This answer choice mixes up information in the passage, describing Zellio’s position on Native gambling facilities and governmental interference.
(B) While Andrade’s position is strong, the passage doesn’t suggest that he is hateful or scornful of politicians or their positions.
(C) Again, this answer choice mixes up information in the passage. These are words that Andrade would use to describe Schwarzenegger’s position.
(D) Yes. These words define the term polemical, and they appropriately describe Andrade’s argument. Near the end of the passage, the author refers to Andrade’s forceful language and says that his tone is indicative of the anger felt by many Native communities.
(E) These terms contradict Andrade’s position. In no way is he trying to soothe or make concessions.
16. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. Since this is an EXCEPT question as well, you will find support in the passage for each of the answer choices except the correct one. This question focuses on the first passage, so you only need to look for support for the answer choices there.
(A) This is supported in the passage. In the second sentence, the author mentions that statistical evidence indicates a trend in Native gaming enterprises. Zellio as described in the second paragraph would agree that this is true.
(B) This is supported in the passage. The author describes Zellio’s direct comparison between some Native gaming enterprises and similar facilities in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.
(C) This is supported in the passage. The author refers to Zellio’s claim that there is a complicated relationship between Native communities and governmental officials. The first paragraph also states that the IRGA recognized the right of tribes to operate gaming facilities without state interference. The second paragraph then states that Zellio discusses how the government tries to cash in “despite the passage of the IRGA.”
(D) This is supported in the passage. In the second paragraph, the author refers to Zellio’s statistical evidence that shows that roughly half of the tribes in the United States operate gaming facilities. Thus, roughly half of them do not.
(E) Yes. This is not supported in the passage. Because it makes predictions about the future, it is too broad in scope to be supported by the author’s description of Zellio’s argument.
17. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. Find a statement that is supported by both Andrade and Zellio.
(A) Yes. This is supported in both passages. While there are a number of differences between the passages, both deal with, to varying degrees, governmental interference in Native gaming enterprises.
(B) This is a partial answer; eliminate it. While this is something that Andrade is likely to assert, nothing in the passage suggests that this is a position that Zellio would agree with.
(C) This contradicts both passages; eliminate it.
(D) There is no support for this answer choice in either passage; eliminate it.
(E) Zellio withholds judgment—this statement is too strong to be supported by her. Andrade does not discuss the IRGA; rather, he criticizes a certain political figure for his statements and possible policies.
18. This is a BIG PICTURE: PRIMARY PURPOSE question. Find a similarity between the purpose of each passage.
(A) While both passages discuss the complicated relationship between Native communities and governmental officials, neither passage examines how this relationship has changed over time.
(B) Yes, this is a commonality between both passages.
(C) Neither passage discusses negative effects of the IRGA.
(D) Neither passage criticizes the IRGA. Also, this would contradict both positions.
(E) If anything, both passages suggest that gambling facilities are positive for Native communities, and neither one considers their possible drawbacks.
19. This is an EXTRACT: INFERENCE question. Find a statement supported by Zellio and not Andrade.
(A) This is not supported in the text. Zellio never considers the negative effects of gaming.
(B) While Passage A indicates that Zellio may consider these effects, Zellio’s primary focus is on statistics.
(C) This is something that Andrade does, and not Zellio.
(D) This answer choice has the wrong scope. While Zellio compares Native gaming facilities to the ones in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, this isn’t her primary concern.
(E) Yes, this is a good summary of the first passage. Andrade, on the other hand, is not described as concerned with statistics.
20. This is a REASONING question. Since this question is based on the second passage, identify the central argument in this passage and determine which answer choice goes the furthest to undermine it. The second passage as a whole describes Andrade’s view.
(A) This strengthens Andrade’s argument.
(B) This has no effect on Andrade’s argument about California.
(C) Again, this is irrelevant to Andrade’s argument.
(D) Yes. This answer choice weakens his argument. Essentially, he argues that currently and historically, governments act in ways that prevent Native communities from advancing. This answer choice is inconsistent with this assertion.
(E) The second passage doesn’t discuss comparative profitability of different facilities.
Questions 21–27
21. This is an EXTRACT: FACT question. There is a dual reference here—to the critics in the first paragraph and to Socialist Realism in the second.
(A) Yes. This is a good paraphrase of the material in the first paragraph.
(B) The passage does not suggest that Socialist Realist paintings are less ideological. The author’s argument in the passage is that both Socialist Realist and Works Progress Administration art has some ideological or political dimension.
(C) The passage says the market is “modest” but nothing more.
(D) The critics mentioned in the passage don’t base their judgment of the painting’s value on their popularity, but rather on their ideological dimensions.
(E) This is the author’s idea, not the critics’.
22. This is a REASONING question. We’re looking for something that goes against the author’s purpose in including the cited information, which appears in the third paragraph.
(A) This is suggestive of a difference, but we don’t know that the Soviet Union controlled the art that was produced in this way, either.
(B) This is suggestive of a difference, but it doesn’t very directly undermine the passage’s suggestion that the works produced under WPA could be considered propaganda.
(C) This is suggestive of a difference, but it isn’t clear that absolutely every artist working in the Soviet Union had to seek government funding.
(D) This doesn’t really attack the idea we’re looking for: that the government in the United States also exerted some control over the production of art.
(E) Yes. This is the best choice. Although the government sponsored production of art, this choice lets us know that it didn’t exert control over its content.
23. This is a STRUCTURE: FUNCTION question. We’re looking for the choice that best fits a general summary of the second paragraph.
(A) We don’t have specific examples from several countries here.
(B) The paragraph isn’t concerned with proving something about all countries.
(C) Yes. The contexts mentioned here are “high culture” and “low culture.”
(D) The tone here is off. The purpose isn’t to praise the popularity of the works and the effectiveness of the policy.
(E) Dissimilarities between the Soviet Union and Germany are not discussed. Rather, the paragraph emphasizes a similarity only.
24. This is an EXTRACT: FACT question. The reference is to the third paragraph.
(A) The passage makes no judgment regarding their comparative aesthetic value.
(B) Yes. This is a safe paraphrase of the text in the third paragraph.
(C) This is how they were used as propaganda, but we’re not sure that this was the artists’ intent in producing them.
(D) No connection is made between the Works Progress Administration and these particular artworks.
(E) Decadence is a quality ascribed to these paintings by Soviet officials, not the author.
25. This is an EXTRACT: FACT question. The cited text is in the second paragraph.
(A) We aren’t told that the subjects were the same.
(B) The tone here is wrong; “deceptive” is a judgment that the author doesn’t make.
(C) The tone here is wrong; we don’t know that these workers didn’t deserve their portrayals in the posters.
(D) Yes. At the very least, both are said to have been against fascism.
(E) This is not a comparison that the passage makes.
26. This is a REASONING question. The cited text is in the first paragraph.
(A) We’re not looking for refined tastes; we’re looking for preferences that can be interpreted as political.
(B) Yes. This is a political preference that influences the decision of what positive and negative aspects will be emphasized.
(C) This has to do with making things, not with making judgments about them.
(D) This is too neutral to be similar to the situation described in the passage.
(E) This has to do with going against preferences. It isn’t similar.
27. This is a BIG PICTURE: MAIN POINT question. We’re looking for the central point of the passage as a whole.
(A) This is too general to be the main point of this passage, which is not about the use of propaganda as a whole.
(B) This is too focused on the failings of the critics to be the best choice available.
(C) This choice leaves out the issue of the author’s evaluation of the critics.
(D) Yes. This has the Soviet/U.S. comparison on which the passage is focused, the notion of propaganda, and the author’s evaluation of the critics.
(E) This is too general to be the main point of the passage, which is not about all art at all times.
1. This is a REASONING question. The statement mentioned is a premise of the argument, and we’re looking for what it supports.
(A) It’s too much to say that hurricane forecasts are the most important factor.
(B) This contradicts information in the argument.
(C) This is not a conclusion stated anywhere in the argument.
(D) Yes. This is the main conclusion of the argument, and even if the cited statement doesn’t support it directly, nevertheless the statement is part of the reasoning supporting this conclusion.
(E) The argument doesn’t conclude that every forecast causes an increase in prices.
2. This is an INFERENCE question. Your goal is to find the one choice that must be true based on the information in the passage.
(A) No, because none of the students was able to repeat the sounds for more than a few seconds.
(B) General memory is not related to an ability to speak French.
(C) Maybe, but we don’t know about practice.
(D) Do we have proof of this? Yes—the French-speaking students remembered more of the sounds that were the French language than they did of the gibberish language. Plus, it’s nice and wishy-washy—“is influenced by.” This is the answer.
(E) Maybe, but we don’t know about learning a foreign language.
3. This is a MAIN POINT question. We’re looking for the statement of the single thing the argument most wants us to accept.
(A) Yes. “Co-evolution” seems a good paraphrase of the escalating increases in the amount of poison in the prey’s body along with the predator’s resistance to that poison.
(B) This is a premise of the argument, not its conclusion.
(C) Predators that use poison are not even mentioned.
(D) This is not the thing that the argument is trying to get us to believe.
(E) No comparison to other methods is made.
4. This is most nearly a WEAKEN question. We’re looking for something that would counter Gardener O’s objection to Gardener M.
(A) This does not address O’s primary objection, which concerns nitrogen-containing compounds.
(B) Yes. This lets us know that although there are enough nitrogen-containing compounds in the soil now, fertilizer must nevertheless be added.
(C) This does not address O’s objection, which is that enough of these compounds are currently present.
(D) The addition of fertilizer is not presented as guaranteeing growth; also, this doesn’t directly address O’s statement that there would seem to be no purpose in adding fertilizer.
(E) If anything, this would help O’s argument.
5. Conclusion: If the researcher gets the grant, the disease will be eradicated.
Premise: If the researcher doesn’t get the grant, she’ll never discover a cure.
Assumption: There’s no other factor preventing her from discovering a cure.
This is a FLAW question. Come up with your own description of how the assistant made a mistake before you go to the answer choices, and then match your description to the choices.
(A) No. This is what the medical researcher said. Look for something that mentions how the assistant thinks the researcher said that the grant was sufficient to ensure success.
(B) This isn’t a flaw in the argument—it’s accurate.
(C) Other diseases weren’t mentioned by anyone.
(D) Yes. He confused necessary with sufficient in this case—the researcher said it was necessary for her to get the grant, and the assistant assumed that the grant will be sufficient to effect the cure.
(E) No. Neither person said this.
6. Conclusion: Cutting taxes by 2 percent will allow lost revenue to help stimulate the economy.
Premise: Tax revenues are projected to decline by 2 percent next year because of shrinkage in GDP.
Assumption: The commentator appears to think that a cut in taxes of 2 percent will somehow result in a loss of only 2 percent to tax revenues, although the GDP is projected to decrease.
This is a FLAW question. We’re looking for a choice that describes or exploits the argument’s assumption.
(A) The argument doesn’t depend on the fact that no further tax cuts will be required.
(B) Yes. This is the best available statement of the flaw here.
(C) It isn’t clear how this choice is relevant to the particular tax cuts under discussion here.
(D) Very interesting. It’s difficult to see how this expresses the argument’s problem.
(E) To whom the benefits of a tax cut primarily accrue is not a relevant issue in this argument.
7. This is a PARALLEL-THE-PRINCIPLE question. We’re looking for the argument that illustrates the same principle that the initial argument illustrates.
(A) This has to do with competing factors, but whereas the initial argument involves things of different types (full-time jobs versus part-time jobs), this one involves only one thing: trees.
(B) This does not deal with competing factors.
(C) Yes. This reproduces the competing factors—downloading of individual songs versus buying complete albums—and indicates that the cheaper option that includes less is displacing the more expensive one that includes more.
(D) This involves competing factors, but it does not have one winning out over another.
(E) This does not involve competing factors.
8. This is a RESOLVE/EXPLAIN question. Look for an answer choice that allows both parts of the argument to be true, and remember to assume the hypothetical truth of each of the answer choices.
(A) This doesn’t explain the discrepancy in the per sheet versus overall price issue.
(B) Absorbency is totally out of the scope here. Eliminate it.
(C) This has the same problem as (B). Eliminate it.
(D) What about Brand B? Without anything to compare this information to, it’s useless. Eliminate it.
(E) Can this explain why the overall price is higher? Yes. There are more sheets on Brand A. It’s the answer.
9. This is a MAIN POINT question. Look for the answer that is the goal of the agricultural officials. What are they trying to do here?
(A) This looks okay, but they’re still going to eat some fruit. Let’s see if there is something better.
(B) This is still not all that great, is it? At least part of the state isn’t going to have any fruit left at all. Let’s keep looking.
(C) But if we’re releasing sterile flies, there won’t be succeeding generations. Eliminate it.
(D) This looks really good. By releasing sterile flies, we should be able to reduce the population of fruit flies. It’s the answer.
(E) Overpopulation is the opposite of what we want here. Eliminate it.
10. Conclusion: There is no reason to pass the bill.
Premise: The bill would prevent a problem that is responsible for only a small proportion of small-business failures.
Assumptions: The bill would not help the economy in other ways than preventing the failure of a small proportion of small businesses.
This is a WEAKEN question. We’re looking for the choice that attacks the assumption or, failing that, gives us a reason to believe the conclusion might not be right.
(A) At best, this would strengthen the conclusion.
(B) This would strengthen the conclusion.
(C) This doesn’t seem to be relevant to the bill at the center of this argument.
(D) This would strengthen the conclusion.
(E) Yes. Because we’re told that small businesses are crucial to the country’s economy, this would be a beneficial effect of the bill in question.
11. This is most like a WEAKEN or STRENGTHEN or RESOLVE/EXPLAIN question because you’re looking for the one thing in the answer choices that, if known, will have the most IMPACT on the argument. So let’s go looking for that.
(A) It depends. Were they equal at current cost levels? No. At current price levels? Maybe. Eliminate it.
(B) This confuses “cost” and “price.” Eliminate it.
(C) Yep. We know she doesn’t like the current situation, and this would make it worse. She would object to this.
(D) This would have no impact on the argument either way. Eliminate it.
(E) Efficiency is not the issue—cost is.
12. This is a REASONING question. We’re looking for the choice that correctly describes the argument.
(A) It’s not the advantages, but the disadvantages, of the course of action that are mentioned.
(B) One of the bad results concerns cost, but not both of them.
(C) Failure to eliminate other possibilities is not the reason the course of action mentioned is considered unwise.
(D) The motives of the shareholders are not discussed.
(E) Yes. This mentions the two possibilities discussed in the argument and matches the argument’s conclusion.
13. Conclusion: New information received about candidates doesn’t affect a voter’s decision of which candidate to support.
Premises: An initial survey in which information was presented yielded the same proportion of voters who support each candidate as a later poll in which further information was presented to the same voter.
Assumptions: The primary assumption here is that we can conclude that voters didn’t change their opinions on the basis of the fact that the proportion of the group that supported each candidate didn’t change.
This is a WEAKEN question. We’re looking for a choice that attacks the assumption, or else generally contradicts the conclusion.
(A) Although this suggests that the new information wasn’t of too major a nature, it doesn’t contradict the conclusion very strongly.
(B) This doesn’t have a definite impact on the question of whether new information changes opinions.
(C) If anything, this strengthens the conclusion by showing that the information conveyed in the survey was in fact new.
(D) Yes. This indicates that although the proportions were the same, many individual voters changed their mind. Although this doesn’t definitively contradict the conclusion, it does destroy the evidence’s relevance to it.
(E) This doesn’t attack the relevance of the evidence to the conclusion; new information other than that provided in the survey may still have changed the voters’ decisions.
14. Conclusion: Oil exploration can’t be efficiently conducted if it uses only geological methods.
Premises: Geological methods can find oil, but they can’t tell you how much is there.
Assumption: Efficient oil exploration requires being able to tell how much oil is in a place where you find it.
This is a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION question. We’re looking for something that the conclusion requires in order to be correct.
(A) The practicality of extraction isn’t clearly related to either geological or invasive methods.
(B) Geological methods give you this, so this isn’t really relevant to the conclusion.
(C) The issue here is conducting exploration efficiently, not making the decision to drill.
(D) Yes. If efficient exploration can be conducted without this knowledge, then it remains possible that it could be conducted with geological methods alone.
(E) This contradicts a premise of the argument.
15. This is an INFERENCE question. Your goal is to find the one choice that must be true based on the information in the passage.
(A) “Human nature” is a little too general here. Eliminate it.
(B) “Some” is nice and wishy-washy. Let’s leave it. (B) is our best answer here.
(C) It doesn’t have to be true that every society’s hierarchy is “unique.” Eliminate it.
(D) Money is out of the scope of the argument. Eliminate it.
(E) Each society has BOTH privileged and common categories. Eliminate it.
16. Conclusion: Pacific islanders were the first humans to settle the Americas.
Premise: The vast majority of native peoples are much more closely related to Pacific islanders than they are to the group widely believed to have been the first to settle the Americas.
Assumption: The group from which a majority of the native inhabitants are descended must have been the first one to arrive.
This is a MAIN POINT question. We’re looking for the thing that the argument wants us to believe.
(A) The conclusion here doesn’t explicitly say that this belief is no longer held.
(B) This is a premise of the argument, not its conclusion.
(C) Yes. This is a good paraphrase of the main point as it is stated in the argument.
(D) The conclusion here doesn’t concern how they got here first, only that they did.
(E) This is more extreme than the similar statement made in the argument, and it isn’t its main conclusion.
17. This is a FLAW question. We want the choice that describes or exploits an assumption of the argument.
(A) Acceptance of the other theory is not the reason that the argument concludes it is false.
(B) The fact that this is a possible explanation is not the reason that the argument concludes it is correct.
(C) There is no hypothetical statement anywhere in the argument similar to the one described in this choice.
(D) The argument doesn’t use a conclusion about one place to draw conclusions about another.
(E) Yes. The evidence supports only the conclusion that descendents of Pacific islanders came to the Americas; it doesn’t directly show that they came to the Americas first.
18. Conclusion: Internal-combustion engines cannot be indefinitely used to power aircraft.
Premises: Current internal-combustion engines burn refined petroleum; the supply of petroleum is limited.
Assumption: Internal-combustion engines cannot burn, instead of petroleum, some resource whose supply is not limited.
This is a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION question. We’re looking for something that the argument needs for its conclusion to be correct.
(A) This is not within the scope of the argument; the conclusion concerns only internal-combustion engines.
(B) Yes. If this is untrue—if internal-combustion engines can be designed to burn fuel from renewable resources—then it’s possible that they could be used to power aircraft indefinitely.
(C) Other fuels derived from petroleum have no effect on the force of this argument.
(D) Other types of engines are not strictly relevant to this argument’s conclusion.
(E) Practicality is not an explicit issue of this argument.
19. Conclusion: Faith in mystical practices increases in life-threatening situations.
Premise: People are more likely to use healing crystals for cancer than for a cold or flu.
Assumption: The people who use healing crystals actually believe they will work.
This is a WEAKEN question. Figure out which answer choice has the most negative impact on the conclusion of the argument. Remember to assume the hypothetical truth of each choice and apply it to the argument.
(A) We’re concerned more with crystals and specific diseases—this is a little too general.
(B) Mystical practices that are not used are not the issue.
(C) Ah, so while they are trying these cures, their faith in them hasn’t necessarily increased—this would weaken the argument. This is the answer.
(D) None of this is talking about anything in the argument. Eliminate it.
(E) The ancientness of crystals has no impact on the argument. Eliminate it.
20. Conclusion: Nearly everyone can become a consultant.
Premise: Anyone who convinces a company to hire him or her to perform an advisory function is a consultant.
This is a SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION question. We’re looking for the choice that makes the conclusion certain.
(A) Yes. If we assume this, then the conclusion definitely follows.
(B) The argument says that no formal requirements are relevant to the issue.
(C) This wouldn’t help us conclude that nearly everyone can do this.
(D) This restates a premise, and as such provides no additional support to the conclusion.
(E) This doesn’t help us conclude that nearly anyone can become a consultant.
21. This is a RESOLVE/EXPLAIN EXCEPT question. Four of these choices will explain the decision; the odd choice out is our answer.
(A) This would help to explain why the editor didn’t suggest that the manuscript be rejected. The suggestion wouldn’t have mattered.
(B) Yes. This doesn’t offer a clear reason for not rejecting a manuscript with so many problems.
(C) This would help to explain why the editor didn’t suggest that the manuscript be rejected. Although it contained what could be called errors, the errors were features of a good style.
(D) This would help to explain why the editor didn’t suggest that the manuscript be rejected. Its good qualities were very good, and the errors were easy to correct.
(E) This would help to explain why the editor didn’t suggest that the manuscript be rejected. Its flaws didn’t relate to the important factors for making the decision.
22. This is an INFERENCE question. Your goal is to find the one choice that must be true based on the information in the passage.
(A) No, because if candidates don’t respond, there can’t be a landslide.
(B) We have no idea what would happen if the election were close. Eliminate it.
(C) This is the invalid contrapositive of the first sentence. Eliminate it.
(D) Bingo—it’s the contrapositive of the first sentence—that if you don’t respond, you can’t have a landslide.
(E) “Only” is too extreme here. Eliminate it.
23. Conclusion: The philosopher’s rule for deciding when an action is unethical is incorrect.
Premises: Sometimes, disobeying laws serves to fight injustice in society; it is everyone’s ethical responsibility to fight injustice; by the philosopher’s rule, however, breaking laws is unethical.
Assumption: The philosopher’s rule, when applied to the cases in question, would consider only the fact that they are examples of breaking the law, rather than examples of breaking the law for the purpose of fighting injustice.
This is a FLAW question. We’re looking for a choice that either describes or exploits an assumption of the argument.
(A) This is not a distinction that is relevant to the argument’s conclusion.
(B) Yes. The relevant distinction is that these instances of breaking the law are intended to help society.
(C) The relevance of the principle isn’t in doubt; the method of its application is.
(D) This argument does not confuse characteristics of an individual with characteristics of a group or collection.
(E) No. The argument attempts to support its conclusion with premises that differ from it.
24. Conclusion: All known physical phenomena are governed by the same law.
Premise: Each known physical phenomenon is governed by physical laws.
Flaw: There may be more than one physical law, yet all are called “the same law.”
This is a PARALLEL-THE-FLAW question. We’re looking for the answer choice that has the same problem.
(A) No. This one is flawed because it misuses the conditional “all” statement: The fact that all tree trunks have xylem and phloem doesn’t exclude the possibility that some tissues with xylem and phloem are not tree trunks. This is not the same as the problem with the original argument.
(B) No. This argument is not flawed.
(C) Yes. In this argument, “action taken by a person” corresponds to “known physical phenomenon,” and “can be explained by unconscious motives” corresponds to “is governed by physical laws.”
(D) No. This argument is not flawed.
(E) No. The conclusion of this argument is not at all similar to the conclusion of the original argument.
25. Conclusion: politician → ~fanatic
Premises: iconoclast → ~public figure; politician → public figure
This is a SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION question. We’re looking for the choice that makes the conclusion certain by completing a chain of conditional statements leading from “politician” to “~fanatic.”
Note that the two premises given allow us to form part of such a chain, using the contrapositive of the second statement listed above. We have this chain: politician → public figure → ~iconoclast. We need to extend it by one link to “fanatic.”
(A) Fanatic → public figure. Neither this statement nor its contrapositive allows us to extend the chain.
(B) Fanatic → iconoclast. This is it. Note its contrapositive: ~iconoclast → ~fanatic. This allows us to extend the chain to reach the desired conclusion.
(C) Public figure → politician. This doesn’t involve the missing term—“fanatic”—at all.
(D) Fanatic → ~iconoclast. Neither this statement nor its contrapositive allows us to extend the chain.
(E) Iconoclast → ~politician. We already know this from our premises; also, this doesn’t include the missing term: “fanatic.”
26. This is most closely related to an INFERENCE question. We’re looking for a choice about which Wendy and Thomas would both express the same opinion.
(A) Neither participant expresses this opinion.
(B) Yes. Both Wendy and Thomas would say that this is true.
(C) Neither participant expresses this opinion.
(D) It seems as though Wendy would say this is true; Thomas would definitely say it isn’t.
(E) Neither participant expresses this opinion.
1. This is an INFERENCE question. Your goal is to find the one choice that must be true based on the information in the passage.
(A) No. The senator never bases moral issue responses on logic. Eliminate it.
(B) No. The senator may very well be responding to an economic issue. Eliminate it.
(C) No. The senator could be responding to a moral issue. Eliminate it.
(D) No. The senator always uses logic to respond to economic issues. Eliminate it.
(E) Bingo. Nice and wishy-washy, and accurate. With political issues, the senator might respond with a gut instinct. This is the answer.
2. This is a REASONING question. We want the choice that correctly describes the purpose of the indicated statement.
(A) Yes. The statement in question is the only premise of the argument.
(B) The statement in question is not supported by any other premise.
(C) This choice contradicts the argument’s conclusion.
(D) The sincerity of political candidates is not an issue in this argument.
(E) The main conclusion of the argument is that politicians will not make good on their promises.
3. This is a RESOLVE/EXPLAIN question. We’re looking for the choice that describes how 20 percent of production could be eliminated while only reducing direct manufacturing costs by 15 percent.
(A) If anything, this would make the paradox worse.
(B) If anything, this would make the paradox worse. Cutbacks in addition to the ones mentioned should result in more savings, not less.
(C) This doesn’t seem to offer a clear explanation of the unexpectedly low cost savings.
(D) Yes. This tells us that the costs of some part of the production process associated with the eliminated products were impossible to reduce.
(E) This choice describes costs not directly related to manufacturing, which are not relevant to the paradox here.
4. This is an INFERENCE question. It is also an EXCEPT question, so your goal is to find the one choice that doesn’t have to be true based on the information in the passage.
(A) We have no idea what they recommend. It’s never mentioned in the passage. This is the answer.
(B) Yes. This is mentioned in the second sentence. Eliminate it.
(C) Yes. This is mentioned in the second sentence. One for eggs; one for adults. Eliminate it.
(D) This is why we need two chemicals—see the second sentence again.
(E) This is a major part of sentence two. Eliminate it.
5. Conclusion: Engineered bacteria is a better way to dispose of some radioactive waste than is burying it in sealed containers.
Premises: Buried waste remains radioactive for much longer; burying waste can lead to contaminated soil or water.
Assumption: The cited advantages of bacteria are not outweighed by an unstated disadvantage.
This is a WEAKEN question. We’re looking for the choice that tells us why bacteria might not be a better solution.
(A) This would strengthen the argument, if only slightly.
(B) This argument’s conclusion doesn’t state that bacteria are suitable for all types of radioactive waste.
(C) Like (B), this choice indicates that there are some types of radioactive contamination for which bacteria won’t work, but the argument doesn’t claim that they will work for all types of contamination.
(D) Yes. Bacteria have a more serious negative effect on soil and water than burying waste does, which casts doubt on the conclusion.
(E) As long as these mutants aren’t harmful and don’t render the method completely ineffective, this isn’t relevant to the conclusion.
6. Conclusion: The flare was caused by comet X colliding with star P.
Premises: Comet X was observed heading toward star P. Then later a flare was observed; a flare could have been caused by a comet colliding with a star.
Flaw: The fact that an observation could have had a particular cause is treated as positive proof that it did.
This is a PARALLEL-THE-FLAW question. We’re looking for the choice that makes the same mistake.
(A) The conclusion in the original is definite; the conclusion here is qualified.
(B) This is a good argument.
(C) Yes. This reproduces all of the features of the original.
(D) This argument involves an either/or that isn’t similar to anything seen in the original argument.
(E) This is a good argument.
7. Conclusion: The supplement is at least as effective at treating mold allergies as any prescription drug.
Premises: Surveys show that all mold allergy sufferers who took the supplement improved; these surveys have never been refuted by the drug companies.
Assumption: The fact that the study has never been refuted indicates that its findings are correct; the improvement found in the study was at least as great as the improvements associated with those who are treated with prescription drugs.
This is a FLAW question. We’re looking for a choice that describes or exploits an assumption.
(A) Careful. This would be a great answer to a weaken question, but this isn’t something the argument says.
(B) Like (A), this is related to an error in the reasoning but doesn’t correctly describe what the argument is saying.
(C) Yes. This indicates something that the argument does incorrectly.
(D) This doesn’t seem like an incorrect thing to do.
(E) Again, this is a great answer to a weaken question, but doesn’t fit the question asked.
8. Conclusion: It is not true that certain cold medicines impair the ability to operate a car.
Premise: Applicants on cold medicine are no less likely to pass driver’s license exams than are applicants generally.
Assumption: Performance on driver’s license exams measures ability to operate a car; the cold medicines mentioned in the conclusion are the same ones the applicants in the survey were taking.
This is a FLAW question. We’re looking for a choice that exploits an assumption of the argument.
(A) The size of the group taking cold medicine isn’t relevant unless the number is very small.
(B) Yes. It’s possible that only a few cold medicines have a detrimental effect; it seems likely that you wouldn’t take them before taking a driver’s license test, doesn’t it?
(C) Close, but this indicates that those who fail may nevertheless operate a vehicle safely; it seems that this possibility would affect both groups equally.
(D) This doesn’t appear to have any effect on the argument’s conclusion.
(E) This is a side issue.
9. This is a MAIN POINT question. We’re looking for what the argument wants us to believe.
(A) This is a premise of the argument.
(B) The issue here is not what advantages herding behavior offers so much as it is one particular advantage that it doesn’t offer.
(C) The preferences of carnivores aren’t what this argument is trying to tell us about.
(D) Yes. This is the choice that gets all of the significant pieces of the argument and tells us what the argument wants us to get from them.
(E) This would weaken the argument. It’s certainly not the main point.
10. Conclusion: The best strategy to reform former dictatorships is to propose democratic reform or market reform, but not both.
Premises: Many countries where one was introduced ended up adopting the other; most countries where the two were introduced simultaneously adopted neither.
This is a STRENGTHEN question. Because there are no obvious flaws, it’s likely that our answer will directly support the conclusion.
(A) The difficulty of one route versus the other has no effect on this conclusion.
(B) The details of how authoritarian governments work do not appear to be relevant to this conclusion.
(C) Humanitarian needs are not directly relevant to the conclusion.
(D) Yes. This provides additional support for the fact that some type of reform must be advocated for, but advocating both will not be successful.
(E) These countries are not relevant to the conclusion.
11. Conclusion: A new correct definition that is able to solve some problems that the currently accepted definition cannot should become the accepted definition.
Premise: The accepted definition should be the correct definition that solves the greatest number of problems.
Assumption: A new correct definition that solves some problems that the currently accepted definition cannot must solve a greater number of problems than the currently accepted definition does.
This is a PRINCIPLE question. We’re looking, more specifically, for the principle that would justify the conclusion.
(A) Determining whether a definition is correct is irrelevant to the conclusion; it covers only correct definitions.
(B) Yes. This would guarantee that the new definition really does solve more problems than the previously accepted definition.
(C) Incorrect definitions are not relevant to the conclusion.
(D) Truth is not relevant to this conclusion.
(E) This is a side issue; definitions of this sort are not relevant to the conclusion.
12. This is a PRINCIPLE question. We are given five principles in the answer choices for this specific question, so we should come up with our own principle for the actions in the argument and match it to the answer choices.
(A) But they’re not dealing with both causes—only the software cause. Eliminate it.
(B) They’re not assuming that—if they were, they’d go out and replace the hardware. Eliminate it.
(C) They’re not testing assumptions; they can’t test anything. They just have to hope it’s the problem that’s cheaper to fix. Eliminate it.
(D) They’re hoping that it’s the software until it’s really obvious it’s not. This is the answer.
(E) They’re not altering any strategy in the argument. Eliminate it.
13. Conclusion: If a person is a master, she must have played chess at least four hours each day.
Premise: If a person plays four hours each day, she will become a master.
Assumption: Playing four hours each day is the only way to become a master.
This is a FLAW question. Try to come up with your own description of why the author’s conclusion is flawed before you go to the answer choices, and then match your description to the choices.
(A) Whether other people think the player is a master is irrevelant. According to the argument, anyone who plays at least four hours a day “will inevitably become a master.”
(B) Bingo. The author makes an invalid contrapositive in the argument. This is the answer.
(C) We have no idea whether this is true. Eliminate it.
(D) We don’t care about chess champion recommendations. Eliminate it.
(E) We don’t care about most people. The argument doesn’t say everyone. Eliminate it.
14. Conclusion: prescriptive grammar → ~natural science
Premises: prescriptive grammar → set of axiomatic principles; set of axiomatic principles → ~experimentation
This is a SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION question. We want the choice that guarantees the truth of the conclusion by completing the chain from “prescriptive grammar” to “~natural science.”
Note that the two premises given allow us to form part of such a chain: prescriptive grammar → set of axiomatic principles → ~experimentation. The most likely link we’ll find in the choices is “~experimentation → natural science.”
(A) No “some” statement can provide us the needed link.
(B) Yes. This reads “natural science → experimentation.” Its contrapositive provides the link we’re looking for.
(C) This reads “experimentation → set of axiomatic principles,” which is the contrapositive of one of our premises. This choice doesn’t add any new information.
(D) This reads “experimentation → natural science.” This does not allow us to extend the chain.
(E) No grammar that does not rely upon a set of axiomatic principles is a science.
15. Conclusion: Marcel will make less money this year than last year.
Premise: He made less from his investments.
Assumption: His other sources of income did not increase by enough to offset the decrease in profit from investments.
This is a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION question. The correct answer will be something necessary for the conclusion to be true, and if made false, will make the argument fall apart.
(A) If they did offset, then Marcel could make just as much, which would make the argument fall apart. This is the answer.
(B) There is no connection between these two things except for the fact that Marcel is interested in both of them. Eliminate it.
(C) But we are specifically told in the argument that his portfolio WILL be affected. Eliminate it.
(D) Bummer, but we already know he’s not going to make as much. Eliminate it.
(E) Bummer, but the argument never mentions his expenses. This is out of scope.
16. Conclusion: Efforts to encourage conservation by individuals are unlikely to solve the world’s most pressing energy problems.
Premise: The greatest proportion of energy consumption by individuals is in the form of hidden energy costs associated with products and services.
Assumption: Individuals cannot act to conserve energy usage in forms where they cannot tell how much they are using; solving the most pressing energy problems involves reducing energy usage in forms that consume more energy than individuals directly consume.
This is a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION question. We’re looking for something on which the conclusion’s truth depends.
(A) The consumption that needs to be reduced is associated with individual behavior; the individuals just don’t know how much they’re consuming.
(B) The prices of the goods with hidden energy costs aren’t clearly relevant to the conclusion here.
(C) Like (A), this choice doesn’t make the needed distinction.
(D) Like (A) and (C), this choice misses the fact that individuals are really consuming the energy; they just aren’t aware of how much they’re consuming.
(E) Yes. If it’s possible for individuals to engage in effective conservation even without this knowledge, then the argument’s reasoning doesn’t work.
17. Conclusion: Banks must be heavily regulated if a nation wants to remain economically stable.
Premises: Unbridled competition encourages dishonest business practices; when dishonest business practices are common, a nation loses trust; a nation that loses respect cannot secure aid in times of economic trouble.
Assumptions: If banks are not heavily regulated, unbridled competition results; encouraging dishonest business practices leads to those practices becoming common; losing the trust of investors leads to losing the respect of trading partners; aid in times of economic hardship is needed to maintain economic stability.
This is a WEAKEN EXCEPT question. Four of these choices will attack assumptions of the argument; the odd choice out will be the answer.
(A) This weakens the argument by pointing out that unbridled competition may not result even if banks are not heavily regulated.
(B) This weakens the argument by pointing out that unbridled competition doesn’t necessarily lead to dishonest business practices becoming common.
(C) This weakens the argument by pointing out that a nation could lose trust without losing the respect of trading partners.
(D) This weakens the argument by pointing out that securing aid in times of hardship isn’t necessary to economic stability.
(E) Yes. Other shortsighted policies do not appear to be relevant to the conclusion.
18. Conclusion: The labor movement’s purpose is primarily to secure power and only secondarily to help workers.
Premise: Unions that secure better pay for workers serve their own interests by increasing their ability to wield political power.
Flaw: One of two potential motives for an effort is singled out as being the primary one; attributes of labor unions are ascribed to the labor movement as a whole.
This is a FLAW question. We’re looking for a choice that describes or exploits an assumption.
(A) The relevant question isn’t whether political power is in the unions’ interest, but whether this is their primary interest.
(B) Yes. This refers to the part/whole flaw in the argument.
(C) The argument does not say that the two goals discussed are mutually exclusive.
(D) This term appears to be used in a consistent manner.
(E) No political preference is mentioned here.
19. This is a REASONING question. Come up with your own description of how the author makes the argument and then match your description to the choices.
(A) Their argument is clear; it’s their conclusion that stinks. Eliminate it.
(B) The author doesn’t say that they are liars, just that their conclusion is wrong.
(C) No. The author is saying that there is a different cause. Eliminate it.
(D) Their criteria and premises are fine; it’s their conclusion that is bad. Eliminate it.
(E) Yes. It’s not that fathers care more; it’s just that they are exposed more to their children because mothers now work. This is the answer.
20. Conclusion: Appreciating art does not depend on your ability to say what was good or bad.
Premise: Many visitors can’t say what they liked or didn’t like about art, yet they feel strongly about it.
Assumption: Strong feelings about art are the same as appreciating art.
This is a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION question. The correct answer will be something necessary for the conclusion to be true, and if made false, will make the argument fall apart.
(A) We’re looking for a connection between articulation and appreciation. This isn’t it.
(B) Bingo. If it were not true that strong feelings can lead to appreciation, the argument would totally fall apart. This is the answer.
(C) This is classic LSAT babble. Vocabulary of visual art? Eliminate it.
(D) Always? What if the person hates it? Is that appreciation?
(E) We’re not talking specific or general here; we’re more concerned with whether we merely can or can’t say anything at all. (B) is the best choice.
21. This is an INFERENCE question. Because it is also an EXCEPT question, your goal is to find the one choice that can’t be true based on the information in the passage.
(A) This can be true—the argument says only that some can’t. Eliminate it.
(B) This can be true—there could be some people who can do this. Eliminate it.
(C) As long as they feel strongly about it, they can still appreciate it. Articulation isn’t necessary.
(D) This can be true also—there is no contradiction in the argument.
(E) This is the answer. It is the opposite of the argument, which says you can feel strongly and appreciate without expressing a reason.
22. This is a REASONING question. Come up with your own description of how Evan’s second statement counters Dalia, and then match your description to the choices.
(A) No. He attacks it directly, so he does think it’s relevant. Eliminate it.
(B) He doesn’t call into question the amount of information she possesses, but rather her interpretation of that information. Eliminate it.
(C) No. He’s not confused at all. He’s actually saying that her argument supports his argument.
(D) He doesn’t appeal to anyone. Eliminate it.
(E) Bingo. He twists it around so it supports his argument. This is the answer.
23. This is a REASONING question. Come up with your own description of what they’re arguing about, and then match your description to the choices.
(A) Both agree that poaching is bad; they’re arguing about whether it’s the primary cause of extinction.
(B) Not whether this campaign will affect the demand, but whether it will affect extinction.
(C) We don’t know the numbers. Eliminate it.
(D) They’re arguing over the best method for saving as many species as possible.
(E) Yes. The environmentalist thinks that the strategy of saving habitats is more important than the naturalist’s strategy of a media campaign. This is the answer.
24. Conclusion: The statue found in the ancient city of Ouz was looted from a neighboring city.
Premises: There is no sign that the inhabitants of Ouz made anything out of bronze; the inhabitants at Ouz frequently raided other cities.
This is a WEAKEN question. Because there doesn’t seem to be an obvious flaw to the argument, our choice will most likely attack the conclusion directly.
(A) Yes. Although this doesn’t tell us with any certainty how the statue got there, it does cast significant doubt on the argument’s explanation.
(B) This may lend slight strength to the conclusion; it doesn’t weaken it.
(C) This may lend slight strength to the conclusion; it doesn’t weaken it.
(D) This strengthens the conclusion.
(E) This is too general to have much impact on the conclusion.
25. Conclusion: It seems unlikely that job stress leads to increased risk of heart attack.
Premise: Despite the stresses to which they are exposed, fighter pilots are less likely to die of heart attack than are most people.
Assumptions: Comparisons concerning the likelihood of dying of a heart attack provide useful information about the incidence of heart attack; fighter pilots are representative of all those who have stressful jobs.
This is a STRENGTHEN question. We want a choice that will either shore up an assumption of the argument or support the conclusion directly.
(A) This seems most likely to be an effect of the hazardous nature of their work, which according to the argument was compensated for in the study. At best, this might weaken the conclusion.
(B) Yes. This concerns a characteristic of fighter pilots that may not be shared by the rest of the population. By eliminating a potential alternative explanation of the survey results, this strengthens the argument.
(C) This weakens the argument.
(D) This weakens the argument.
(E) Because the conclusion concerns only whether job stress increases the likelihood of heart attack, the fact that other factors may have more of an effect isn’t truly relevant.
Questions 1–6
1. This is a Grab-a-Rule question; it should be the first one you work on this game.
(A) This one has Y in, but not V.
(B) This one does not violate any rules.
(C) This one has V in, but neither one of R or G.
(D) This one has Y in, but not I.
(E) This one has both O and I in.
2. Do this one on your second pass through this game. Our deduction that either G or O has to be in is useful here: Since at least one of them has to be in, only G or O can possibly be the answer to this question. Only G is listed, so choice (D) must be the answer.
3. If you notice that this is effectively a Grab–a–Rule question, you should do it on your first pass through the game. We want to pick the choice that violates a rule. In this case, that’s clearly (E).
4. Do this one on your first pass through this game. V out means that Y must be out, but we cannot tell anything else about the position of the other colors. This is actually enough to find the answer: We know that V, Y, and at least one of I or O must be out. Since the game includes only 6 elements, and at least 3 must be out, there can be no more than 3 in.
If you resort to POE on this question, you have to be careful. Since this is a must-be-true question, you have to find counterexamples for the choices you work on—in other words, you have to try to make them false; if you cannot, then you’ve found the answer.
For your reference, the diagram below includes counterexamples for the incorrect choices on this question:
In order to make (C) false, you would have to put at least 4 elements in; since this can never be done without violating a rule, (C) is the answer.
5. Do this one on your first pass through this game. V in means that R or G must be in; we can make no further deductions. Since this is a must-be-false question, the simplest way to proceed is by POE: Try to make the choices true; the one you can’t make true is the answer. The diagram below shows examples that make (A), (B), (C), and (D) true:
Why can’t (E) work? I in forces O out; O out forces G in, which contradicts this choice. If you scanned and spotted this contradiction, then you saved yourself a good deal of time.
6. This is a Rule-Changer question; do it after you’ve done all the others on this game. This one removes the assurance that either G or O must be in. Fortunately, this question is basically another Grab-a-Rule; as in question 3, we want to pick the one that violates one of the rules we have left. Choice (C) has V in but doesn’t include either R or G. Thus (C) is the answer we want.
7. This is as close to a Grab-a-Rule question as you’re likely to get on a game like this; since you have so many deductions, you should do this one first. The only choice that matches our diagram is (E).
8. Do this one on your second pass through this game. It’s clear from our deductions that (A) can happen, and the others can’t.
9. Do this one on your first pass through this game. If the runner in 1 is from s, then that runner is I; the runner in 2 is M. The only choice that fits with this case is (C).
10. Do this one on your first pass through the game. If the runner in 1 has a brace, then it must be M; I is in 2. Since I doesn’t wear a brace, (C) cannot happen, and is therefore the answer we want.
11. Do this one on your second pass through the game. (A) is one of our initial deductions, so this is the answer we want here.
12. Do this one on your second pass through the game; although it is a specific question, the question task here looks rather difficult. Fortunately, we have a large number of deductions to help. The fact that runners with the same entry in the bottom tier cannot be next to one another means, first of all, that both M and F must wear braces, since they will definitely be next to I and G, respectively. Moreover, since H wears a brace, the runners that do not—I and G—must be next to H. Thus there is only one arrangement that works, so (A) is the answer here.
13. Do this one on your first pass through the game. If a runner with a brace is in 2, it must be M; that puts I in 1. Then (B) can’t be true, and that’s the answer we want.
14. Do this one on your second pass through this game. On this pass, you’re hoping for your prior work to help you out, and it does: We have previously seen an example of (E) in question 16, so this is the choice we want.
15. Do this one on your first pass through this game. T in the g column means that W is on the first floor. We also know that one of S or W must be on each side, which means that S cannot be immediately above W; T, then, cannot be on the same floor with P. Beyond this, we have to do POE to find the answer.
(A) Fortunately, we find the answer on the first try; here’s the diagram:
(B) S in 1g would force W into 1o. That forces the PR block into 3o and 2o. With W in the o column, we must have V and R on the same floor, so V must be in 2g. But that would force T into 1g—the same floor with P, which we know we can’t have.
(C) This contradicts our deduction that T and P cannot be on the same floor.
(D) W has to be in the first floor; P can never be on the first floor.
(E) In order to do this, V would have to be in 1g while W is in 1o. But W in 1o requires V and R to be on the same floor, so this can’t work.
16. Do this one on your first pass through this game. W on the third floor means that it isn’t on the first floor, so T must be in the o column. The o column is now full, so W, S, and V must all be in the g column. In particular, then, W is in g3. Since g3 is occupied, S can’t be on the third floor, which means T can’t be on the first floor. In order to accommodate the PR block, then, T must be in o3, P must be in o2, and R must be in o1. S and V can be in the remaining spaces in either order. Here’s the diagram:
The only choice that’s consistent with our diagram is (D).
17. Do this one on your first pass through this game. T in 1o means that P is in 3o, R is in 2o, and the remaining elements—W, S, and V—must be in the g column. T on the first floor means that S is on the third floor; it must be 3g. Here’s the diagram:
The only choice listed that doesn’t have to be true is (B), the choice we want here.
18. Do this one on your first pass through the game. P not on the third floor means that P is in 2o, and R is in 1o. S not on the third floor means that T is not on the first floor; S must occupy either 1g or 2g. There actually are deductions beyond this one, although they may be difficult to get at this stage. POE is probably a better option:
(A) We have already deduced that R must be in 1o.
(B) Putting T in 2g—the only vacant second-floor unit—would put T and P in the same row, which would force S to be immediately above W, but there is no space for this.
(C) This can happen, and is therefore the answer we want. Here’s the diagram:
(D) We’ve already deduced that S can go only in 1g or 2g.
(E) The only open slot in the o column is 3o. W in o would force T into column g, but we have a clue that tells us anytime T is in column g, W must be on the first floor.
19. Do this one on the second pass through this game. F has to be in 1; the only jockey F can’t be paired with is u, who must be with L. (A) is the only choice here that works.
20. Do this one on the first pass through this game. Since u has to go with L, and L must be one of the last two, the only way r can be assigned to L is if L and u are in 3, and G and r are in 4. s and t are in the remaining positions. Here’s the diagram:
The only choice that isn’t possible, according to the diagram, is (C).
21. Do this one on the first pass through this game. This one puts L and u in 3 and G in 4; we don’t know anything else about the locations of r, s, and t. Thus, (D) is the answer; s could be in 4 with G.
22. Do this one on the second pass through this game. As count-the-ways questions go, this one isn’t bad. Either L or G must be assigned to 4. If L is in 4, we have only one possibility: u must go with L. If G is in 4, then any of r, s, or t may also appear there: That’s three more possibilities. The total number of possibilities is 4, which is answer choice (C).
23. Do this one on the first pass through this game. This is identical to number 20, except that now it’s s in 4 instead of r. Here’s the diagram:
The only choice that doesn’t have to be true, according to the diagram, is (D).