PT119.S3.Q2 > 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 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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

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 · lr

Willett concludes, contra Benson, that the new zoning regulations should be opposed. His reason for doing so is that he believes he was justified in opposing previous zoning regulations.

Willett’s reasoning is questionable because he can’t make a definitive conclusion about the present/future based only on the past. Even if the previously proposed regulations were unjustified, the new regulations might be worth supporting. The city could have changed in the several years since the previous regulations were proposed.

We don’t know that Willett thinks that growth is necessarily good—we only know that he thinks growth is good for a specific city at some specific times.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the source of argument rather than its content (ad hominem); it isn’t relevant here, because Willett isn’t making a personal attack.

If new reasons for restricting growth have arisen, it means that Willett’s reliance on old reasons to oppose the regulations is unsound. This is the problem of induction that Willett failed to account for.

This isn’t the problem with the argument, because the number of different factors contributing to city quality of life is irrelevant to Willett’s conclusion.

Even if the council of ten years ago was poorly qualified, their decision to oppose regulations could have been correct. And even if they were correct to oppose those regulations, that wouldn’t be enough to justify opposing the new regulations—which is the flaw in Willett’s reasoning.

PrepTest 119 - Section 3 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action