Question Type:
Inference (most supported)
Stimulus Breakdown:
Read for Causal, Conditional, Quantitative, or Comparative wording.
CONDITIONAL - If something will need to be laundered frequently, then heavy tapestry fabrics are not appropriate.
COMPARATIVE: clothing (DOES need to be laundered frequently) vs. swags/valances/window treatments (DON'T need to be laundered frequently).
Answer Anticipation:
We can apply the conditional to clothing, since our trigger is "IF something does need to be laundered frequently, THEN heavy tapestry fabrics are not appropriate".
We can't apply the conditional to swags/valances/window stuff because we don't have any rule that says "IF something DOESN'T need to be laundered frequently".
So, applying the rule to clothing, we know that "Heavy tapestry fabrics would not be appropriate for clothing, such as skirts or jackets".
Correct Answer:
D
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) We can't infer anything about swags.
(B) We can't infer anything about swags or valances.
(C) We can't infer anything about window stuff.
(D) YES. "IF fabric is appropriate for skirt/jacket --> THEN not heavy tapestry." Alternatively, "If a fabric IS a heavy tapestry, then it is not appropriate for skirts/jackets." This is what we anticipated.
(E) This is contradicted. ALL types of clothing are ill-suited for heavy tapestry.
Takeaway/Pattern: If they give us conditional logic, they're testing us on our ability to interpret / chain together / apply conditional logic.
"Only" = right side idea (so does "only if" … "the only" = left side idea)
So we put "for use in things that don't need to be frequently laundered" on the right of the arrow and put the other idea "HTF is appropriate" on the left. Once we got specific facts in the second sentence, we had to judge whether we could apply our rule to these specifics. Saying something DOES need to be frequently laundered triggers our rule, but saying something DOESN'T need to be frequently laundered doesn't trigger anything.
#officialexplanation