PTA.S1.Q17

PrepTest A - Section 1 - Question 17

Hide analysis

Conclusion Giordano Bruno, the Renaissance philosopher, must have been a spy for England during the time he served in the French embassy there. ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ █ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███ █████████████ █████ ███████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████

Argument Summary

The author argues that Giordano Bruno was a spy for England while he was serving in the French embassy in London. This is based on English state records stating that there was a spy at the embassy who was "the only clergyman" working there. Since Bruno had been ordained a member of the clergy before he started work there, the author concludes that Bruno was the spy.

Analysis: Ways to Weaken and Strengthen

The author makes a pretty big assumption in stating that since Bruno had been ordained "long before" starting work at the embassy, he must be the clergyman referred to in the English state documents. We don't know if Bruno was still working as a clergyman, even if he had once been ordained, and the author hasn't shown us that no other clergymen were working at the Embassy at the time.

So if we knew that Bruno was no longer a clergyman, or if there was another, perhaps more prominent, clergyman working at the embassy at the same time as Bruno (suggesting that the authors of the English state documents were mistaken, did not know about Bruno's ordination, or did not refer to Bruno a clergyman for some other reason), either of these facts would strongly weaken the author's argument.

Similarly, if we knew that Bruno was still working as a clergyman, or that there was no one else working at the French embassy at the time who had ever been ordained, either of these facts would strengthen the author's argument.

Show answer
17.

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

a

During the Renaissance ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ██████

Incorrect. We already know from the English state documents that there was apparently at least one clergyman working at the embassy in London. So at most, (A) tells us that other French embassies also each had at least one clergyman on staff, which doesn't strengthen the argument. We need information that strengthens the argument that Giordano Bruno was the clergyman working at the French embassy in London, and therefore was an English spy.
3%
b

Several years after ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ █████████████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████

Incorrect. What happened to Bruno because of his philosophical ideas after his embassy service doesn't help us determine if he was a spy for the English during his embassy service.
1%
c

Like the rest ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████

Incorrect. Since this fact applies to all the staff at the French embassy, including Bruno, it doesn't tell us anything about Bruno specifically, or make it more likely that he was a spy for the English.
0%
d

Bruno was known ██ ███ ██████████████ ██ █ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████

Incorrect. Whether or not Bruno was known as a teacher doesn't tell us whether he was also a clergyman or a spy.
1%
e

The period of █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ████████████ ████████████

Correct. Even though (E) doesn't tell us more about Bruno's status as a clergyman (or not), it provides an additional piece of supporting evidence suggesting Bruno was the spy at the embassy, besides the fact that the spy was a clergyman and Bruno was ordained: Bruno was at the embassy during exactly the period that the spy was transmitting information.
96%

Confirm action

Are you sure?