May be I am missing something, but all the choices and the question body seems to follow the same logical features to me.
Reptiles are air-breathing vertebrates with completely ossified skeletons; so alligators must be air-breathing vertebrates with completely ossified skeletons.
In terms of its logical features, the argument above most resembles which one of the following?
(A) Green plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen back into the air; so it follows that grass takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen into the air.
(B) Some red butterflies are poisonous to birds that prey on them; so this particular red butterfly is poisonous to birds that prey on it.
(C) Knowledge about the empirical world can be gained from books; so Virginia Woolf’s book A Room of One’s Own must provide knowledge about the empirical world.
(D) Dierdre has seen every film directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; so Dierdre must have seen Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, a film directed by Fassbinder.
(E) Skiers run a high risk of bone fracture; so it is likely that Lindsey, who has been an avid skier for many years, has suffered a broken bone at some point.
Certainly its between A and D.
B) Some red butterflies can be poisonous and any red butterfly. Moreover, first part is not generalisation
C) Not all books give knowledge of empirical world.
E) Skiers have high risk but not certainty of breaking bones,
Between, A & D, surely A is apt.
Thanks and regards,
According to me A cannot be the ans because of following reason:
From the passage, its a "superclass (X) does something & so subclass (Y) must also be doing it " kind of relation..
X = Reptiles
Y = Aligator
In (A) X = Green Plants & Grass may not necessarily be Green => 'Y here is not a subset of X'..classic fallacy guys !!
Correct me if I am missing something ..I am newbie here and have recently started prep..
Only (D) fits in as per my analysis of the argument and options..Good que by the way!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)