PT137.S3.Q20 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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

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 · lr

Jarrett shouldn’t have criticized someone else’s work. Why not? Because according to the principle’s contrapositive, you should never criticize someone else’s work if either (1) the criticism will seriously harm that other person or (2) you don’t expect the criticism to benefit anyone else. And in Jarrett’s case, the criticism didn’t benefit anyone at all.

Jarrett’s criticism didn’t benefit anyone, but it’s unknown whether he expected his criticism to benefit anyone. And the principle in the stimulus is concerned with whether there’s an expectation of benefiting others. (Whether or not the criticism actually does benefit others is irrelevant.) So we can make the argument valid if we assume that Jarrett didn’t expect his criticism to benefit others.

He wasn’t under the impression that his criticism would benefit anyone. This triggers the contrapositive of the principle: if you don’t have the hope or expectation of benefiting someone else with your criticism, you shouldn’t criticize. Thus Jarrett shouldn’t have criticized.

The principle is concerned with whether there’s an expectation of benefiting others with one’s criticism. Whether or not the criticism actually does benefit others is irrelevant. (B) is about actual benefits, not expectations, so it has no effect on the argument.

Antagonizing is irrelevant to the argument. Any sufficient assumption must show that Jarrett either didn’t expect to benefit anyone with his criticism, or else the criticism seriously harmed Ostertag. “Might antagonize Ostertag” doesn’t trigger either of those conditions.

This says he hoped to benefit himself, but benefiting oneself is irrelevant to the argument. The principle is concerned with whether there’s an expectation of benefiting others. That Jarrett hoped to benefit himself tells us nothing about whether he also hoped to benefit others.

The principle is concerned with whether one expects to benefit someone other than oneself. (E) merely tells us that Jarrett didn’t expect to benefit Ostertag. To trigger the principle and reach the conclusion, we’d need to know that he didn’t expect to benefit anyone at all.

PrepTest 137 - Section 3 - Question 20

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action