PT141.S4.Q25 > 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 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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 · 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 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that Roberta is probably irritable. He supports this with the following premises:

(1) If Roberta is irritable, then she is tired.

(2) If Roberta loses things, then she is tired.

(3) Roberta is yawning and she lost her keys.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Roberta yawning might suggest that she’s tired, but we also know that if she loses something, then she is tired. Because she lost something (her keys), the author could correctly conclude that Roberta is tired. But instead, he concludes that she is irritable.

The argument establishes that Roberta is tired, but the author treats “tired” as sufficient for “irritable.” According to premise 1, “tired” is necessary. In other words, Roberta could be losing things and therefore be tired but still not be irritable.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming correlation proves causation. The author doesn’t make this mistake. He says that Roberta is yawning, but never assumes that this is caused by her tiredness. Because she lost her keys, we know that Roberta is indeed tired.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the argument’s conclusion merely restates a premise. The author doesn't make this mistake. His premises may not support his conclusion well, but they are distinct from his conclusion.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where an argument draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence. The author doesn’t make this mistake. He draws a conclusion about Roberta based on evidence about Roberta; he never generalizes about anyone else.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author does make this mistake, but not in the way that (D) describes. He thinks that Roberta being tired is sufficient for her being irritable, not that it’s sufficient for her losing things.

The argument says that Roberta lost her keys, which means that she’s tired. The author then treats “tired” as sufficient for Roberta’s being irritable, but according to the premises, “tired” is necessary. Roberta could be tired but not irritable.

PrepTest 141 - Section 4 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action