Analytical Reasoning Questions

This directly supports the publishers’ explanation: over the same five-year period, print sales fell while access to electronic copies rose—consistent with copying substituting for purchases and motivating price increases.

A publication backlog (A) concerns supply timing, not substitution. A decline in student numbers with stable e-book availability (B) points to fewer buyers rather than copying pressure. Cutting back on e-book offerings (D) would reduce copying pressure, not increase it, so it cannot explain higher prices. A larger catalog of texts (E) would, if anything, heighten competition and tend to lower prices.

The statement that dumping in lower-fish areas is less regulated and less expensive weakens the argument that dumping there implies the dumped pesticide is dangerous, by supplying two other motivations for dumping there.

Previous underestimation of danger (A) does not weaken and could support the argument for implicitly admitting danger. The passage does not identify the area as rural (B). (C) contradicts itself, making no sense. The passage does not identify the area as urban (E).

This weakens the argument by challenging the stated necessity: if China can avoid collapse through structural reforms without a 33% GNP increase, then the claim that a 33% rise is required is undermined.

Choice B is a truism about what happens after collapse, not a challenge to the necessity claim. Choice C restates that a large GNP increase would prevent collapse, which supports the passage. Choices D and E introduce unrelated targets (17%, 71%) that do not address the argument’s necessity/sufficiency structure.

If every fish Estelle caught was a salmon, all she caught were salmon.

Salmon were not necessarily the only fish she saw (A); she could have seen but not caught other fish. Likewise there were not necessarily no other fish there (C); she just didn’t catch them. Estelle caught all the salmon she saw, not all the fish she saw (D). (E) is the same as (A).

The range of compromises between destroying the country and restricting protesters is ignored.

Some protesters do not want to destroy the country (A), but some may. Therefore, emphasis on protesting’s importance does not necessarily weaken the conclusion (B). Defining reasons for protesting (D) is not required to support the conclusion, which is based on protesters destroying the country regardless of the issues. That protesters are truly threats (E) strengthens, not weakens, the conclusion.

More diners eating together are more likely to notice all subsequently experiencing food poisoning.

Customers expecting food poisoning would not eat at fast food restaurants (B). Even if expecting more chance of it, they would still report occurrences. More people choosing fast food restaurants (C) would increase the probability of food poisoning complaints from fast food, not family dining, restaurants. Choice (D) simply contradicts (A). Microwaving (E) is not associated with food poisoning.

Although hopeful growers believe climate changes “should not” change rainfall, these cause annual agricultural yield fluctuations. This claim proceeds from the assumption that since yields already fluctuate from climate change, additional rainfall change would exacerbate fluctuations.

That climate change cannot be accurately predicted (A) is not claimed. Technology’s significant influence despite climate change makes improved yields likely, NOT “highly unlikely” (C). That rainfall is less predictable than temperature (D), or cool temperatures more threatening (E), are not claims.

Scientists can observe and study various life stages of breeds too long-lived to study their full life span during scientists’ lifetimes.

The passage indicates subjects using the same observational methods, but using the same ideals (A) cannot be assumed. Choice (B) is true, but not indicated in the passage. Today’s techniques preventing studying many breeds in the environment (D) is nowhere suggested. Various scientific techniques are available (E), but this cannot be inferred from the passage.

He believes neither child can take control of his company because of his opinion that they “lack common sense.” Therefore, he believes a person needs common sense to run a company.

That his children are “ignorant to the experience of controlling the company” (A) is not indicated as his opinion. Nothing is mentioned about obtaining an MBA (B). He thinks both children lack common sense, not one (D). Committee assistance (E) is never mentioned.

The argument identifies the loophole of unlimited special procedure expenses, and unlimited repeat visit charges for the same problem.

It does not imply dental care cannot be regulated (B). Substituting specialized procedures for less-expensive procedures (C) is never suggested. The passage never suggests that regular visits cost more than specialized procedures (D), or that patients cannot distinguish appropriate expenses (E).

Champions “have all changed to” Wilson’s new rackets; they did not win past championships with them.

Champions are knowledgeable about tennis and their equipment (A): the ad uses their choosing Wilson’s as an example to follow. It indicates exclusive use of oak in Wilson’s new line (B). Durability and strength are named as oak’s benefits; from the suggestion these will “improve your tennis swing,” we can infer “powerful swings” (C) and “you will improve your tennis playing” (D).

To know if they will feel pain from a blood test, we must assume the test uses a needle and that needles cause this patient pain.

Having trouble finding the vein (B) is not the only cause of needle pain. Experiencing pain with this doctor before (C) does not guarantee they always will. Leaving a bruise (D) does not always mean the needle hurt. Having to try different needles (E) is not the only cause of pain.

The student’s real-life experience is unlikely to show in writing about fictional characters.

Different writing techniques’ variable success among writers (A) is not criticism of her choice. Author permission (C) is irrelevant to her choice’s inappropriateness. Self-examination is important to originality (D), but misses the point: relevance to students’ everyday lives, not originality, was assigned. Instructive, significant themes’ precedence over fame (E) is irrelevant to her choosing fictional characters to describe her real-life experiences.

Monopoly means declining/ therefore, lacking competition. By recognizing its field is competitive, the company accepts competition and has a non-monopolistic focus.

Monopoly’s definition as a one-seller market (A) is not implied: the statement indicates only that monopoly is “distinguished through the decline or lack of competition.” Family competition (B), service industry (D), and public ownership (E) are never implied in the statement.

If local taxpayers already fund AA facilities through municipal health budgets, then the claim “if they’re forced on us, society should pay” loses force or is moot—the funding responsibility is already assigned locally.

Choice B (too costly locally) and D (high maintenance expense) both bolster the idea that a broader “society” should pay if facilities are imposed. Choice C (neighborhood support) strengthens political feasibility, not a funding objection. Choice E (some alcoholics decline treatment) is irrelevant to who should fund facilities.

The official attributed Americans’ perception of Japanese as “inscrutable” to American lack of discernment, not Japanese inaccessibility.

He never suggested all people are inscrutable (A). He did not say that most Americans don’t understand Japanese culture specifically (B), but that Americans lack understanding generally. He never said the Japanese mistrust American ambassadors (D). For the offensive “inscrutable” stereotype, he returned a reciprocal opinion of Americans as unperceptive, rather than calling for improved cultural understanding (E).

The official’s calm, friendly, and gently worded reply flips the ambassador’s stereotype back on him—an understated, witty reversal.

Nothing in the description suggests fear (A), heightened emotion (B), anger (C), or indifference (D).

The poet humorously couches the fact that he forgot what he meant by saying only he and God knew at the time, and now only God knows.

He is not saying God is wiser (A), but remembers better. He never says people can’t understand poetry (B); he refers only to himself not knowing/remembering his meaning. He refers only to the verse’s meaning, not its inspiration (C, D).

Syllogisms have three parts: major premise, minor premise, conclusion. Syllogism uses deductive reasoning, reducing general information (all birds have beaks, all sparrows are birds) to infer a more specific conclusion (all sparrows have beaks).

Inductive reasoning (D), the opposite of deductive, accumulates specific facts to form generalizations (A). No special training (C) was required to make this conclusion. The argument involves no ambiguity (E): it is not open to multiple interpretations or unclear.

The ad assumes some people treat imported spring water as a status symbol, since it proposes hiding the domestic origin in a crystal decanter to avoid embarrassment.

It actually claims the opposite of Choice A: “You’ll never taste the difference.” Nothing here assumes about bottling at source. Choice C introduces tariffs/duties as the reason for higher prices, which the ad never suggests. Choice D is about taste improvement; the decanter is for presentation, not flavor.

The paradox is the priest using the parishioner’s answer as a criterion for judging itself.

He did not later change his accusation (A). Following/violating religious law (C) is irrelevant. There is no reason to think the priest doesn’t believe in the devil (D). The questioner rejecting the answer (E) is not necessarily paradoxical if he doesn’t like the answer.