PT122.S2.Q25 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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

There’s no reason for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments right now. Why? Cecile’s associate only requires public disclosure of an officer’s investment in two instances: when an officer is authorized to disburse association funds or when an officer sits on the board of a petrochemical company. Cecile is an officer unauthorized to disburse funds and only sits on the board of a timber business.

According to premises, Cecile isn’t required by her association to publicly disclose her investments; she isn’t on the board of a petrochemical company and isn’t authorized to disburse funds. Yet the conclusion says there’s no reason, at all, for Cecil to disclose her investments at this time.

How to get from premises to conclusion? We can infer the conclusion if we assume that the public disclosure requirements of Cecil’s association list the only possible reasons for Cecil to publicly disclose her investments right now.

Irrelevant. The argument isn’t about Cecile’s future situation, but rather about whether there’s a reason for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments now.

The argument isn’t concerned with potential conflicts of interest caused by Cecile’s position. It’s concerned with whether Cecil should publicly disclose her investments right now.

According to the premises, we know that Cecile isn’t required by her association to publicly disclose her investments right now. If (C) is true, we can infer that there are no reasons, at all, for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments right now, which is the argument’s conclusion.

A petrochemical company owning the timber company is irrelevant. The premises only say that Cecile would be required by her association to publicly disclose her investments if she sat on the board of a petrochemical company.

Irrelevant. The argument isn’t about what Cecile’s investments consist of, but rather whether there are any reasons for her to publicly disclose her investments right now.

PrepTest 122 - Section 2 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action