PT134.S1.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

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

Marital vows often contain a certain promise that uses the word “love.” The author concludes that “love” in this context should not be interpreted as referring to feelings. This is because the promise would make no sense if “love” referred to feelings.

The conclusion asserts that we should not interpret the word “love” as referring to feelings in the context of a certain promise. But the premises do not establish when one should not interpret a word in a particular way. The premises only establish that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings makes no sense. So to get from the premise to the conclusion, what’s missing is the principle that if an interretation makes no sense, one should not use that interpretation.

(A) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.

(B) concerns whether a promise should be made. But the argument concerns whether a certain word in a promise should be interpreted in a particular way. How a word should be interpreted has nothing to do with whether a promise should be made.

(C) establishes that “love” can refer to other things besides feelings. But it doesn’t guarantee that we SHOULD NOT interpret “love” as referring to something else besides feelings in the context of the promise.

We know from the premises that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise makes no sense. (D) establishes that if an interpretation of a promise makes no sense, then we should not use that interpretation. So (D), combined with the premises, proves we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.

(E) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.

PrepTest 134 - Section 1 - Question 23

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action