PT104.S4.Q10 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that Fred’s computer mouse must have been unplugged. He supports this by saying that unplugging the mouse from a computer causes all programs that require the mouse to become unusable. He then notes that a software program on Fred’s computer that requires the mouse has become unusable.

This is the flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “unplugging the mouse” as necessary for “the program becoming unusable.” But according to his argument, “unplugging the mouse” is sufficient, not necessary.

In other words, the argument overlooks the possibility that Fred’s program could become unusable without his mouse becoming unplugged.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation.” But the author doesn’t use multiple meanings of the word “unusable” throughout his argument. He simply uses it to mean that a software program has stopped working.

Unplugging the mouse can cause a program to become unusable, but the author assumes that it’s necessary to bring about that result. In other words, the conclusion mistakenly treats “unplugging the mouse” as a necessary condition, while in the premises, it’s merely sufficient.

The author never introduces unrelated information as evidence. His evidence is related to his conclusion, but he mistakes the sufficient condition for a necessary condition.

The argument cites a specific scenario about Fred, not a broad generalization.

The author is only addressing Fred’s software program that does require a mouse. Presumably other programs don’t require a mouse, but those programs aren’t relevant to the argument.

PrepTest 104 - Section 4 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action