PT114.S1.Q2 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 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

SECTION 4 · lr

The similarities between two products recently released by different companies are not coincidence. Why not? The similarities are too fundamental—they have matching appearance and function.

The conclusion is a rejection of both company’s claims: “The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence.”

This is premise. The author uses (A) to support the claim that the similarities between the products aren’t coincidental.

The author never says this. She doesn’t address why the products are similar (who copied whom, or if the companies colluded), she only denies that it’s coincidence.

This is exactly what the author concludes. The argument supports the claim that the similarities are not a “mere coincidence” by giving examples of similarities too fundamental to have occurred accidentally.

This isn’t stated in the argument. We don’t know whether the author believes this could be a plausible explanation in some cases. She’s only concerned with addressing this specific case.

The author doesn’t say this; she doesn’t discuss anything appearing to be unique. She’s concerned with rejecting the idea that these similarities are coincidence.

PrepTest 114 - Section 1 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action