PTA.S1.Q15

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 Question 8

PASSAGE 2
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

PASSAGE 4
Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · 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 4 · 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

PrepTest A - Section 1 - Question 15

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Antiwhaling activist: Not all species of whales are threatened with extinction. █████████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ █ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ██ ███████

Objective: Justify the Conclusion

The antiwhaling activist comes to the conclusion that all whale-hunting should be banned. In support, the activist explains that hunting endangered whales should be banned. Furthermore, it's impossible to enforce any such ban on hunting endangered whales unless whale-hunting is banned in its entirety.

From the activist's premises, we can infer that if we want to enforce a ban on hunting endangered whales, then we should ban all whale-hunting. However, the activist doesn't tell us that we should enforce a ban on hunting endangered whales, only that such a ban should be put in place. To justify the conclusion, we need to build a premise-to-conclusion bridge that takes us from banning hunting endangered whales to enforcing that ban by banning all whale-hunting. The correct answer may be phrased abstractly, but when applied to the argument, it will have an equivalent effect.

Analysis by AlexandraNash

Show answer

15.

Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████

The fishing industry ███ █ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ███████████

(A) actually undermines the conclusion: if fishers have a right to hunt non-endangered whales, maybe we shouldn't ban all whale-hunting.

If a certain ████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████████

(B) is a bit abstract, so let's apply it to the stimulus. The stimulus says hunting endangered whales should be prohibited, so that's the first "activity" mentioned. And we also know hunting non-endangered whales would interfere with enforcing that ban, so whale-hunting in general is the "other activity".

If we make those substitutions, we get: if hunting endangered whales ought to be prohibited, so should whale-hunting in general. And since the stimulus affirms that sufficient condition, this justifies the conclusion that whale-hunting should be fully banned.

No industry should █████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████████████ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████████

The stimulus discusses technologies that are already in use, but adopting new technologies isn't in question. (C) doesn't apply to the stimulus.

All actions that ███ ████████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██████████ ████████████

Preventing endangered whales from being hunted is certainly a "permissible end", and banning all whale-hunting would be instrumental in achieving that end. However, (D) leads to the conclusion that a total whale-hunting ban is permissible, while the stimulus reaches a stronger conclusion that it's desirable. (D) justifies the wrong conclusion.

If a commercial ████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████████ █████ ██ ████ █████████

The stimulus doesn't distinguish between commercial and non-commercial whale-hunting, so (E) doesn't apply. We need to know that measures necessary to enforce a ban on hunting endangered whales should be taken, which we don't get from (E).

Difficulty

Question

93% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 128

137

75% 147

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

PSA - find the rule

Stems that tell us there will be an argument or judgment in the stimulus, and ask us which answer choice provides a rule or principle that supports that argument or judgment.

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

154

93%

163

147

158

153

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!