PT131.S3.Q23 > 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 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

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 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

Predicting an invention is self-contradictory. Why? Because predicting an invention entails developing a detailed conception of how that invention will function. But if you manage to do that, congrats, you just invented the thing. So that’s not prediction. That’s just invention. Hence, predicting an invention is impossible.

Author argues that something (predicting an invention) is impossible because a necessary condition of that something (developing a detailed conception of how that invention will function) rules that something out by definition (you can’t predict an invention that already exists).

Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not construct a counterexample. There is no general hypothesis about the future to disprove.

Descriptively accurate. The author implicitly appeals to the definition of “predict” (stating that something will happen) and explicitly appeals to the definition of “invent” (developing a detailed conception) to infer that a kind of occurrence (predicting an invention) is impossible.

Descriptively inaccurate. We’ll grant that the “hypothesis” is that “it’s possible to predict an invention.” But the author does not demonstrate that the implications of that hypothesis are false. Rather, the author demonstrates that the hypothesis is self-contradictory.

Descriptively inaccurate. Argument does not contain any problem that is “widely thought to be scientific” nor does the author point out any problem as being actually “conceptual.”

Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not attempt to show that predicting any event implies that it has in fact already taken place. That would mean prediction in general would be impossible. Author only attempts to show that predicting a specific type of event (inventions) would be impossible.

PrepTest 131 - Section 3 - Question 23

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action