PT128.S3.Q12 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 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 Question 28

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 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that Archway Appliances must use low quality components in its clothes dryers. As support, the author says that Archway dryers are of poor quality, with missing bolts and sections assembled in the wrong order.

This is a part v. whole flaw. From the premises, we know that the dryers as a whole are bad, but the reasons given are related to the assembly process. We don’t know enough to conclude that the parts must be bad––it could totally be the case that good parts are used to make a bad dryer.

This possibility is not relevant to the argument. The premises only state that there is a risk of shock or fire. It isn’t relevant to the argument whether or not there have been actual fires or electrocutions.

This isn’t relevant to the argument. The issue with the argument is that it provides premises about dryer construction and makes a conclusion about dryer parts. Even if the information in (B) is considered, the conclusion about dryer parts is still completely unsupported.

The argument is about the quality of the assembly process and the components of Archway dryers; dryer performance and customer loyalty are both outside the scope of the argument.

This is the flaw. From the premises, we know that there are issues with the construction of the dryers, but the conclusion jumps to the claim that the parts of the dryer must be bad. High quality parts can be used to construct bad dryers, and the argument overlooks this possibility.

This is irrelevant to the argument. We know from the premises that the dryer assembly process is not careful or safe, and the quality of the components of other products is not relevant to the argument about the dryers specifically.

PrepTest 128 - Section 3 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action