PT113.S4.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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 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 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

This author concludes that Scottish druid stones are not very old. He supports this statement by saying that Irish druid stones are very old.

Our author identifies two groups of druid stones: Irish and Scottish. He tells us that all Irish stones are very old. That conditional relationship might look like this: Irish → Very Old.

Then, our author concludes that because Scottish stones are not Irish, they cannot have the characteristic of being very old (/Irish → /Very Old). The author commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions. All that the author has told us is that Irish druid stones are very old; he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of another type of stone also being very old. Therefore, the author’s argument is unsupported.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where an author will argue a point hinged on a word that changes meaning. Our author doesn’t use terms that shift in meaning. The meaning of important terms in this argument stays consistent throughout.

The author does not make a leap from most to all of a group in his argument; rather, he confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions.

This is a cookie-cutter answer choice referring to circular reasoning. For this to be the correct answer choice, our author would have had to assume or claim in his premises that Scottish druid stones are not very old. The author didn’t do that, so this is not correct.

The author is not making predictions of the characteristics of future druid stones in their argument, but instead confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions.

Our author establishes that all members of a group (the Irish druid stones) have a property (being very old), and uses this to say that something outside of the group (Scottish druid stones) cannot have that property (conclusion of Scottish stones not being very old).

PrepTest 113 - Section 4 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action