PT140.S2.Q3 > 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 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

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 humorous ads are the only effective ones. He supports this with the following premises:

(1) If something is humorous, it will attract people’s attention and allow a message to be conveyed.

(2) If an ad is effective, it must convey its message.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. We know effective ads convey a message (and so they also can convey a message) but the author then assumes that they must be humorous. In other words, he treats “humorous” as necessary for “can convey” when it’s really only sufficient.

He argues that if an ad is effective, it must be humorous, since humorous ads can convey a message. But what if other ads, like emotional ads, can also convey a message? In that case, humorous ads might not be the only effective ones.

The author treats “humorous” as necessary for “can convey,” when it’s really only sufficient. He assumes that only humor can convey a message. But if scary or sad ads can also hold attention long enough to convey a message, then funny ads might not be the only effective ones.

The author actually distinguishes between these ideas by saying that if something is humorous it will not only attract attention but it will also hold attention long enough for a message to be conveyed.

The author treats a sufficient condition for “can convey” as if it were a necessary condition. His conclusion isn’t about what is sufficient for an ad’s being effective; it’s about what is necessary for an ad’s being effective.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in different ways. The author doesn't make this mistake; he uses “effective” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.

The author doesn’t assume this. In fact, he doesn’t make any claims about the purpose of ads at all. Instead, he assumes that humorous ads are the only effective ones, without considering that other kinds of ads might also be able to convey a message and be effective.

PrepTest 140 - Section 2 - Question 3

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action