PT108.S2.Q18 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · 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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

Sid concludes that Micki’s statement is false because if everyone believed Micki’s statement, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die.

Sid reasons that if everyone adhered to Micki’s belief, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die. Therefore, Sid concludes that Micki’s statement is incorrect. However, Sid’s argument is questionable because Sid mischaracterizes Micki’s position.

Micki simply states that a single person walking across the grass wouldn’t hurt the grass. Sid then responds by explaining what he believes would happen if everyone walked across the grass, which has nothing to do with Micki’s assertion.

Sid doesn’t attempt to use a statement about the consequences of walking across the grass to disprove a statement about the action of walking across the grass. Sid only talks about the consequences of walking across the grass, not the action of walking across the grass itself.

This is why Sid’s argument is flawed. Sid responds to Micki’s statement about the consequences of a single person walking across the grass as though Micki was discussing the consequences of everyone believing it’s okay to walk across the grass.

Sid’s argument doesn’t contradict itself. Sid’s response to Micki mischaracterizes Micki’s statement, but Sid never discusses his own beliefs.

We don’t know if Sid understands that there may be situations where hurting the grass is justified. (D) has nothing to do with whether Sid is putting forth a sound argument to disprove Micki’s statement.

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where someone attacks a person making an argument rather than attacking the argument itself. Sid doesn’t commit this flaw, as Sid never attacks Micki personally.

PrepTest 108 - Section 2 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action