MCAT Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills Question 13: Answer and Explanation

Home > MCAT Test > MCAT critical analysis and reasoning skills practice tests

Test Information

Question: 13

2. According to the discussion in the final paragraph, one example of "inductive reasoning" would be concluding that an automobile tire will never go flat on the basis of:

  • A. repeated daily observations of the tire staying intact.
  • B. the logical necessity of all tires being incapable of going flat.
  • C. a customary habit of jumping to faulty conclusions.
  • D. knowledge that the tire is made of an indestructible material.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

The correct choice must exemplify "particular pieces of evidence," but what does this really mean? The final paragraph notes how the problem that Hume identified with causation was later called the "problem of induction," suggesting that causal reasoning and inductive reasoning are closely related (although the author does not specify precisely what this relation is). Because of this connection, it is possible to use the examples that the passage provides of causal reasoning as a basis for predicting what will count as inductive reasoning.

The third paragraph offers a crucial hint, with its reference to the formation of customary casual associations "after we repeatedly perceive similar sequences of cause and effect." These repeated perceptions are the "particular pieces of evidence" mentioned in P5. Putting it all together now, the correct answer should make reference to multiple cases in which the tire does not go flat.

Choice (A) presents an immediate match for these expectations. The general conclusion, "this tire will never go flat" could be inductively supported by "repeated daily observations of the tire staying intact."

Previous       Next