Question Type:
Inference (most supported)
Stimulus Breakdown:
Acrylics are great for house painting (smooth, quick drying, durable, easy cleanup). But they can't fix some surface defects such as cracked paint, which indicate there is some underlying problem that needs fixing.
Answer Anticipation:
Inference questions want us to combine ideas to derive some inference or gist. We usually use Causal or Comparison/Contrast language in Most Supported questions.
It's tough to see where these facts are heading or which of them could be combined. The correct answer will probably just be a safely worded restatement of something we heard.
Correct Answer:
D
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Extreme = "not the result". Couldn't it be? Water damage was just one example cited as a possible cause of badly cracked paint.
(B) Extreme = "the only". We can't prove such a strong claim.
(C) Unsupported. We were told that acrylics would not be able to CORRECT badly cracked paint, but you still could paint over non-badly cracked paint.
(D) Yes! Super safe language = NOT a requirement. To prove this claim, you need only one example of something that IS a house paint, but does NOT correct badly cracked paint. Do we have such an example? Of course: acrylic paints!
(E) Extreme = "as wide a range of ____ as any other paint". We have no means of supporting that comparison, whether it's about color or anything else. We could only compare them to other good paints, and only in terms of the qualities of good paints that were listed.
Takeaway/Pattern: This ended up being one of those "straddle the but/yet/however" inferences. If I say, "Patrick is mean, but sometimes he gives his students candy", we can infer that "Being a nice teacher is not a requirement of someone who gives his students candy". Here, we heard "Acrylics are an excellent house paint, but they can't correct surface defects like badly cracked paint".
#officialexplanation