PT143.S4.Q25 > 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 · 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 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. His support is another conditional claim: social integrity is necessary for individual freedom.

The author then makes an extra conditional claim: social integrity is also necessary for pursuing the good life. But note that pursuing the good life has no relationship to either individual freedom or the rule of law. So this claim doesn’t offer any “pathway” to the conclusion that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. Since there’s no way for this claim to support the conclusion, it’s not actually a premise and we can ignore it.

The conclusion is that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom, but the only support is that social integrity is necessary for individual freedom. We could reach the conclusion if we knew that social integrity is in turn sufficient for the rule of law.

If the sufficient and necessary conditions here were reversed, this would be a sufficient assumption. Instead, this says that the rule of law is sufficient for social integrity. So the rule of law still isn’t necessary for individual freedom.

This says the rule of law is necessary for social integrity. And the argument’s premise tells us that social integrity, in turn, is necessary for individual freedom. So the conclusion follows: the rule of law is ultimately necessary for individual freedom.

Pursuing the good life isn’t necessary for individual freedom. So no relationship between the good life and the rule of law can possibly lead to a conclusion about what is necessary for individual freedom.

This says individual freedom is necessary for social integrity. We still don’t know how the rule of law fits into the picture. Since there’s no mention of the rule of law in the argument’s support, any sufficient assumption must at least introduce the rule of law.

This says individual freedom is necessary for the rule of law, whereas the conclusion we’re trying to prove is the reverse: the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. (E) just scrambles the conditions in the conclusion—it doesn’t lead to that conclusion.

PrepTest 143 - Section 4 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action