PT130.S3.Q4 > 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 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

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 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The politician concludes that censorship is not wrong in itself. He supports this by saying that if censorship were wrong, then it would be wrong for an actor to refuse a role in a film that promotes a viewpoint she finds unacceptable, which is an absurd conclusion.

The politician claims that censorship is not wrong because an actor refusing to participate in a film is not wrong. He conflates the actor’s refusal with censorship, assuming that refusing to participate in a film is in fact censorship. But if refusing to participate in a film does not amount to censorship, then the politician’s argument falls apart.

The politician never assumes that actors would fully subscribe to modern liberalism. Instead, he concludes that modern liberals’ views on censorship are incorrect based on an assumption that an actor refusing to participate in a film is censorship.

The politician calls his opponents "modern liberals," but he doesn't do so to discredit their views. Instead, he tries to discredit their point of view with an example he says is absurd.

The researcher never assumes that actors have a moral obligation to participate in certain films. Instead, he assumes that actors’ refusal to participate in certain films amounts to censorship.

The politician’s premise may not support his conclusion well, but the two are not inconsistent or contradictory.

The politician assumes, without providing justification, that actors refusing to participate in certain films is an example of censorship. But if this refusal is not actually censorship, then the politician’s argument falls apart.

PrepTest 130 - Section 3 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action