businessman is an experienced swimmer (A). (B) is not necessarily true: All scuba divers could be businessmen without
contradicting any statement here. (C) takes a wild inferential leap from very shaky ground. (D) is wrong because it is
possible that there are no scuba divers among the experienced crowd that swims every day, even though all scuba divers are
experienced swimmers.
J
Another tricky all/some/none question. The first statement tells us that all actors are Democrats. The next statement says that
some writers are actors. Therefore, we can conclude that some writers (the ones who are actors) must be Democrats—or as
choice (K) puts it, some Democrats are writers. (F) and (G) make unwarranted conclusions about doctors. The third
statement tells us that no doctors are writers—but this doesn’t tell us whether or not doctors can be actors or Democrats. (H)
is wrong because we know only that some writers are Democrats—we don’t know that all writers are Democrats. (J) is a
similar leap—we can’t infer that all actors must be writers.
20.
E
We’re told that if Dieter sings, then Jarik gets a headache and Kari groans. Then we’re told that Kari is not groaning. Using
the contrapositive, we get the following logic: If Jarik doesn’t have a headache and/or if Kari isn’t groaning, then Dieter
must not be singing. So if Kari is not groaning, then there is no way that Dieter is singing—choice (E). (A), (B), and (C) are
wrong because we know that Dieter cannot be singing if Kari is not groaning. (D) is wrong because we’re not given
information about what happens after Dieter stops singing.
21.
H
If you learn that a bill has passed in the Senate and you immediately conclude that it must have been supported by a majority
of the senators, then you are assuming that bills can only pass if they are supported by a majority of the senators. (H)
paraphrases this. There is no reason to assume that every senator approved the bill (F), that there was more than one bill (G),
or that this bill was the most important (J) or the first of its kind (K) in order to reach the conclusion of the question stem.
22.
B
We need an answer choice here that shows correct reasoning because the paragraph in the question stem exhibits reasoning
that is correct. It would have been wrong to conclude that Johann is definitely a partner of the law firm just because he eats at
the country club every time the partners do, but you can at least conclude that he may be a partner (nothing rules out this
possibility). Choice (B) uses similar reasoning. We cannot definitely say that Matthew lied just because he looks guilty like
all liars do (he may easily look guilty because of something else he did), but we can say that he may have lied. (A) is wrong
because it uses incorrect reasoning; Vito must have (not probably has) played baseball in his youth. (C)’s reasoning is
incorrect because we don’t know whether Ben works in a hospital, and if he did, he would definitely, not probably, play golf
in the afternoon. (D) also uses false reasoning: Melissa could easily be a reporter for some other newspaper and still want to
win a Pulitzer. Finally, (E) is very soft reasoning that does not resemble the logic in the question stem at all.
23.
