A) The company’s pricing is morally permissible because innovation benefits future patients. B) The company’s pricing is morally impermissible because it treats poor patients merely as a means to fund R&D. C) The company’s pricing is morally permissible only if all patients can rationally consent to the price. D) The company’s pricing is morally permissible because it does not involve coercion or deception. E) The principle does not apply to for-profit companies.
The governor’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it:
This content mimics the highest difficulty tier (resembling McKinsey PST, GMAT 700+, or Law Admission Test (LNAT) advanced sections). Test Overview | Feature | Detail | | --- | --- | | Test Duration | 30 minutes | | Questions | 24 | | Passages | 4 (250–350 words each) | | Difficulty | Expert (Red Herrings, subtle quantifiers, nested logic, assumption grafting) | | Question Types | 1. Must Be True / Inference 2. Weaken / Strengthen (exceptional nuance) 3. Paradox Resolution 4. Flaw in Reasoning 5. Principle Application | | Scoring | 0–900 scaled (600+ = expert level) | Instructions (as seen by candidate) Each question presents a short passage followed by a critical reasoning task. Do not use outside knowledge. The passage is the sole source of truth. Pay attention to quantifiers (some, most, all, none), modals (must, may, could), and embedded exceptions . For "Weaken" questions, select the option that, if true , most undermines the core logical link — not merely the conclusion’s plausibility. For "Must Be True", the answer must be provable directly from the passage without additional assumptions. Sample Test Module (Expert Level) Passage 1 (Inference & Flaw) Despite increased funding for public defense attorneys in the state of Caledonia, conviction rates among indigent defendants have risen by 8% over the last three years. The governor claims that this proves the additional funding was wasted, since more poor defendants are being found guilty. However, the state’s chief public defender notes that during the same period, overall crime rates fell by 12%, and the number of cases brought against indigent defendants dropped by 15%. She argues that the remaining cases are more serious on average, and therefore harder to win, making the funding justified. Question 1 (Must Be True) Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the passage? utopia verbal critical reasoning test (expert)
A Rationale: Self-selection (motivated managers) could cause higher ratings regardless of training, explaining the observational study’s effect. Random assignment removes this bias. B would reduce difference, not explain it. C contradicts timeline. D is possible but less direct — and the study claimed no significant difference, not just power issue. E suggests industry difference, but A resolves via selection bias, the classic explanation for observational vs. RCT discrepancy. Passage 3 (Weaken — Expert Level) Economist: In order to reduce traffic congestion, the city council plans to impose a $15 daily congestion charge for driving into the downtown zone between 7 AM and 7 PM. Based on a pilot study in a similar city, such a charge reduced traffic by 18% within six months. Therefore, the plan will likely succeed here.
A) Confuses a change in proportion with a change in absolute numbers. B) Assumes that public defender funding is the only factor affecting conviction rates. C) Relies on anecdotal evidence about individual cases. D) Fails to consider that conviction rates might have risen even more without the funding. E) Takes a correlation between two trends as proof of causation. A) The company’s pricing is morally permissible because
A Rationale: The argument’s hidden assumption is that the causal mechanism (charge → less driving) transfers. A attacks the mechanism: without good transit, drivers have no alternative, so reduction may not occur. B is similar but narrower (biking only). C weakens (charge less effective) but less direct than A, which eliminates alternatives entirely. D and E are irrelevant or weaken less. Passage 4 (Principle Application) Principle: An action is morally permissible only if it does not treat another person merely as a means to an end, and it respects their capacity for rational consent.
A Rationale: Governor sees conviction rate rise and concludes waste, ignoring that absolute convictions likely fell. That is the classic proportion/absolute confusion. D is tempting but secondary; the core flaw is misinterpretation of rate vs. total. Passage 2 (Paradox & Strengthen) A recent study of 5,000 corporate managers found that managers who completed an “emotional intelligence (EI)” training course received 23% higher performance ratings one year later than those who did not. However, a follow-up study randomly assigning 2,000 managers to either EI training or a placebo leadership seminar found no significant difference in performance ratings after one year. Both studies were methodologically sound and measured performance using the same 360-degree review tool. Question 3 (Paradox Resolution) Which of the following, if true, most helps resolve the apparent discrepancy? D) The company’s pricing is morally permissible because
B Rationale: Total cases dropped 15%, but conviction rate rose 8%. Let original cases = 100, original conviction rate = 50% → 50 convictions. New cases = 85, new rate = 54% → 45.9 convictions. Absolute convictions fell (50 → 46). B is provable. A requires counterfactual. C is opinion. D is not stated (harder to win ≠ higher conviction rate). E is unsupported.