PT110.S2.Q14 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18

PASSAGE 4

Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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 Question 27

The author concludes people who say every discovery or invention is a form of self-expression shouldn’t be taken seriously unless they make their interpretation more interesting. Why not? Because everything a person does is somewhat self-expressive.

The author assumes people who say all discovery and invention is self-expression allow everything to count as self-expression. In addition, he assumes a claim about self-expression should only be taken seriously if it means denying that some things are self-expressive.

This doesn’t affect the argument. It implies the claim about self-expression is both trivial and uninteresting, but does nothing to establish that a trivial, uninteresting claim shouldn’t be taken seriously.

This is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many people do take the claim seriously—only whether people should take it seriously.

This makes concrete a key assumption: that a claim about self-expression shouldn’t be taken seriously if it allows everything to be self-expressive and is therefore trivial.

This doesn’t support the assertion that a more interesting interpretation is required. The author may consider the interpretation provided interesting, but not interesting enough.

If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests the author asks the impossible by demanding those who claim discovery and invention are instances of self-expression craft an interpretation that is both not trivial and more interesting.

PrepTest 110 - Section 2 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action