PT107.S3.Q24 > 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

SECTION 2 · 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 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that either Ms. Chan or her colleague must not be telling the truth. Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad Cities corporation. Her colleague said that Ms. Chan will be gone for much of next year on business trips and is working harder than she has ever worked before. To the author, what the colleague describes about Ms. Chan does not sound like “retirement.”

The author interprets “retired from Quad Cities Corporation” as if it means Ms. Chan retired from working generally. But this overlooks the reasonable possibility that it simply means retired from working at that specific company. If this is what the phrase means, then both Ms. Chan and her colleague could be telling the truth.

The author does not argue that something is true because he heard someone say that it is true. Rather, the author mistakenly believes what each person said is contradictory.

The author does not attack Ms. Chan’s background, character, or behavior. He simply believes what she said contradicts what her colleague said about her.

The author’s conclusion is based in part on the the language “retired from Quad Cities Corporation.” The author thinks this means Ms. Chan retired from working completely. But this language is equivocal because it could also mean that she retired only from that specific company.

There’s no indication that what the colleague said was based on what Ms. Chan said to the colleague. In any case, even if Ms. Chan lied to the colleague, that doesn’t undermine the conclusion that Ms. Chan or the colleague must not be telling the truth.

There’s no reason the author should have concluded that Ms. Chan is of superior character. The failure to make this inference does not help show why both Ms. Chan and her colleague might be telling the truth.

PrepTest 107 - Section 3 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action