PT120.S3.Q13 > 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 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11

PASSAGE 3

Question 12 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 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The writer concludes that legal and diplomatic language has no literary merit. His reasoning is that, owing to its sensitive nature, such writing must be as immune to misinterpretation as possible.

The writer’s support is that legal and diplomatic language must be unambiguous. But why does that mean it must lack literary merit? Perhaps some writing can be hard to misunderstand and still have literary merit.

Therefore, the writer must assume that there’s a connection between writing that has literary merit and writing that is misunderstood.

The negation is: language that has literary value is no more likely to be misunderstood than language without such value. If this were the case, the author’s argument would collapse: Diplomatic language could possess literary merit while also being hard to misunderstand.

The author’s conclusion is about literary merit, not overall importance, so this is irrelevant.

We have no reason to assume that the writer thinks novelists, whom he never mentions, are more likely to be misunderstood than lawyers and diplomats. We don’t know what forms of writing the author thinks have literary merit.

The author has no need to assume this: even if these issues were of great interest to others, his argument about unambiguous language and literary merit would still stand.

The writer doesn’t need to make such a broad assumption: his argument is about the language of lawyers and diplomats, specifically.

PrepTest 120 - Section 3 - Question 13

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action