Published by Think Clearly Prep · Updated .
Start with a diagnostic you can review
The diagnostic runs in the simulator without an account. Answer first, then review the explanation for every choice. Record the conclusion, evidence, and assumption you missed rather than recording only the letter of a wrong answer.
The platform’s original practice tests use three scored sections and 78 questions. They do not reproduce a current four-section sitting with an extra unscored section, and do not yet simulate the announced August 2027 layout.
1. Logical Reasoning: necessary and sufficient conditions
Every approved proposal received an independent review. Proposal K did not receive an independent review. Which conclusion follows?
A. K was not approved. B. K was approved. C. Every reviewed proposal was approved. D. No proposal was approved. E. K was never submitted.
Answer: A. Approval requires review, so the absence of review rules out approval. B contradicts that rule. C reverses it: review does not guarantee approval. D generalizes from one proposal to every proposal. E introduces submission history, which the premises do not address.
2. Logical Reasoning: weaken a causal claim
A town installed brighter streetlights, and reported nighttime collisions fell the next month. An official concludes that the brighter lights caused the decline. Which fact most weakens that conclusion?
A. Some residents prefer dimmer lights. B. The lights use less electricity. C. Road construction reduced nighttime traffic by half during that month. D. The town has several parks. E. Daytime collisions were unchanged.
Answer: C. Less nighttime traffic is an alternative explanation for fewer nighttime collisions. It does not prove the lights had no effect, but makes the causal conclusion less secure. A is a preference, B concerns energy, and D is unrelated. E does not supply a competing explanation for the nighttime change.
3. Logical Reasoning: identify the flaw
Every member of the editing team has completed a writing course. Ren has completed a writing course. Therefore, Ren is a member of the editing team. What is the error?
A. Treating a required condition as enough to establish membership. B. Assuming that no one completes writing courses. C. Comparing unlike percentages. D. Attacking Ren’s character. E. Inferring causation from a time sequence.
Answer: A. Team membership implies course completion, but course completion may be common outside the team. The premises give no percentage, personal attack, or causal sequence, so C, D, and E do not describe this argument; B contradicts the given premise.
Original Reading Comprehension passage
Some museum curators propose replacing long labels with short summaries and optional digital explanations. They argue that visitors who want a quick overview can obtain one, while interested visitors can explore more detail. Critics worry that moving context to a device will fragment the shared experience of viewing an object.
The disagreement need not be resolved by choosing a single label length for every exhibit. For an object whose significance depends on a historical dispute, essential context may need to remain beside the object. For a display of familiar tools, a short label may be sufficient. A useful experiment would compare visitor understanding across both types of exhibit, rather than treating time spent reading as the sole measure of success.
4. Reading Comprehension: main point
Which statement best expresses the passage’s main point?
A. Every museum label should be digital. B. Reading time is the only useful outcome. C. Label design should depend on context and be evaluated through visitor understanding. D. Critics oppose all technology. E. Visitors never want detailed information.
Answer: C. The second paragraph qualifies the initial debate and proposes a context-sensitive evaluation. A and B conflict with that proposal. D exaggerates the critics’ specific concern. E conflicts with the first paragraph’s distinction between visitor preferences.
5. Reading Comprehension: function of an example
Why does the author mention an object whose significance depends on a historical dispute?
A. To prove that museums should avoid controversial exhibits. B. To illustrate a case in which essential context may need to remain next to the object. C. To demonstrate that digital devices always fail. D. To describe the history of museum architecture. E. To reject any comparison among exhibits.
Answer: B. The example supports the author’s distinction among exhibit needs. A and C introduce absolute policies the author never adopts. D is outside the passage’s topic. E conflicts with the proposed comparison across exhibit types.
Turn the result into a study decision
- If you reversed a conditional, practice translating the rule and its contrapositive.
- If you missed a causal alternative, list other ways the result could have happened.
- If you chose an overly broad reading answer, match each part of the choice to the passage.
- Return to the problem without the answer key and explain why all four alternatives fail.