Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PREPTEST 33 DECEMBER 2000 KAPLAN EXPLANATION DOCUMENT © Kaplan, 2001. All rights reserved. SECTION I LOGICAL REASONING 1. (E) Strengthen the Argument The hypothesis that the marmosets pick up their handedness by imitation hinges on the assumption of a causal link between the infants’ handedness and the handedness of the adults allegedly being imitated. By suggesting that marmosets raised with adults who are in the minority share those adults’ minority handedness, (E) renders the cause-and-effect much more likely. (A) is wholly consistent with the stimulus’s second sentence but doesn’t affect the cause-and- effect one way or the other. (B)’s sibling distinction raises a sensible question—why don’t these siblings share the same handedness?—that tends to cast doubt on the hypothesis instead of strengthening it. Ambidexterity (C) wouldn’t support the imitation hypothesis unless a majority of imitating infants and imitated adults were ambidextrous, but the 1/3 figure stops this idea in its tracks. The passing stimulus reference to humans seems solely designed to tempt us toward (D), since humans’ handedness is utterly irrelevant to that of the marmosets. 2. (A) Method of Argument “Similarly” hands you this one on a platter. Sheila’s support for movie colorization rests on the analogy she perceives between movies and prose. Works in each medium, she argues, should be considered unique unto themselves, and not as assaults on the integrity of any source material. Sheila’s example is a parallel one, not a piece of counterevidence (B). Popular opinion as to colorization (C) goes unmentioned. Sheila offers nothing but value judgments, so she is not presenting a set of facts (E) nor can she possibly be making a distinction between value judgments and facts (D). Another problem with (E) is that the general principle to which it alludes—namely, that works of art are distinct entities—is never stated but rather is inferable (by us) from Sheila’s two analogous cases. Which brings us back to (A). 3. (A) Inference (Point at Issue) Since both Juan and Michiko helpfully use the Conclusion Keyword “Hence,” we can readily see that Juan’s point is that pros should be barred from the Olympics while Michiko thinks otherwise, and (A) sums up that disagreement. That each speaker mentions Olympic ideals, whether of fairness (Juan) or of intent (Michiko), serves to bolster (A) as their point at issue. Michiko never mentions the ancient games at all, so (B) cannot be a point at issue between her and Juan. Neither can (C), since it’s an assertion that Michiko believes and that Juan concedes (when he argues that the amateurs are no match for the pros). Finally, Michiko takes her stand “regardless of [the athletes’] backgrounds or resources,” so neither (D) nor (E), each of which raises those very background and resource issues, will pass muster as the issue over which Michiko and Juan go toe to toe.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/28/2010 for the course LAW 1 taught by Professor Mark during the Spring '10 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 26


This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online