PT114.S4.Q8 > 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 politician concludes that his opponent’s argument about promoting alternative forms of housing should not be taken seriously. He supports this conclusion by stating that his opponent does not actually reside in an alternative housing type like an apartment; rather, the opponent lives in a single-family home, the type that he is arguing against.

This politician takes issue with his opponent’s argument because the opponent does not follow his own preachings in his private life. However, just because someone’s actions are inconsistent with an argument he makes does not mean his argument lacks merit. The politician failed to address the core of his opponent’s argument and instead attacked him for something personal and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The politician addressed the opponent’s lifestyle in an attempt to discredit him. However, this reveals nothing about the politician’s opinions on apartments. All we know is that the politician doesn’t want his opponent to be taken seriously, not that he holds any opinions on apartments.

This fact is irrelevant to the politician’s argument. His argument has to do with his opponent’s opinion and living situation. The ease with which apartments can be built in different locations plays no role in what the politician is saying.

The politician’s own living situation is irrelevant to this argument. His argument deals only with his opponent’s opinion and living situation. Mention of the politician’s own opinion, much less his living situation, are not needed in this argument.

The politician failed to address any part of the opponent’s argument related to his stance on zoning laws, opting instead to attack an irrelevant aspect of the opponent’s personal life. Without addressing the opponent’s argument, the politician’s conclusion is unsupported.

Whether or not the opponent has ever lived in an apartment building has nothing to do with his credibility. Promoting the construction of apartment buildings does not require you to have ever lived in one.

PrepTest 114 - Section 4 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action