PT147.S1.Q13 > 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 Question 26

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 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · 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 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

Weingarten argues that keeping animals in zoos is unethical, because it involves placing animals in unnatural environments just for humans’ amusement.

The author concludes that we should reject Weingarten’s claim that zoos are unethical. This is supported by the fact that Weingarten thinks owning pets is OK, and keeping pets involves placing animals in unnatural environments just for humans’ amusement.

The author thinks that pointing out a contradiction in Weingarten’s own beliefs constitutes a reason to reject Weingarten’s conclusion. But his conclusion — that zoos are unethical — can still be true, despite Weingarten having some beliefs that aren’t consistent with his own reasoning.

The author doesn’t assume that Weingarten has pets. The premise concerns Weingarten’s opinion about owning pets and how this contradicts his own reasoning for believing that zoos are unethical.

The author doesn’t argue that because Weingarten has one specific belief, he must have these other beliefs. Nor does the conclusion concern anyone else besides Weingarten. The reasoning attempts to point out an inconsistency in Weingarten’s views. That’s not generalizing.

The author does not misrepresent Weingarten’s claim that keeping animals in zoos is unethical. The author describes that claim accurately and doesn’t change the meaning of it.

The argument isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusing of sufficient and necessary conditions. We don’t get anything that’s necessary in order to be unethical.

The author rejects Weingarten’s claim that zoo are unethical merely on the grounds that Weingarten believes that keeping pets is OK. Even though his view on pets is inconsistent with his view about zoos, that doesn’t constitute evidence that his conclusion is wrong.

PrepTest 147 - Section 1 - Question 13

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action