PT150.S3.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 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 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

The author concludes that Roehmer’s style of argumentation — which involves criticizing the motives of her adversaries — is not a problem for Roehmer. The author supports this conclusion by asserting that Roehmer’s column is just an attempt to please her readers.

The argument inappropriately comments on the motivations of Roehmer’s column, even though it criticizes Roehmer for “impugning the motives of her adversaries.” (This isn’t necessarily something most would identify up front. You probably need to get to this flaw through process of elimination.)

The argument isn’t trying to establish a causal relationship. Although the first sentence notes that Roehmer’s column has affected national politics, that statement isn’t the conclusion. So pointing out that there might be a reversal of cause and effect doesn’t hurt the argument.

The author does not “merely invoke the personal characteristics” of Roehmer. The author comments on the effects of Roehmer’s impugning the motives of her adversaries, as well as Roehmer’s motivation. But neither of these are Roehmer’s personal characteristics.

The argument isn’t trying to establish a causal relationship. Although the first sentence notes that Roehmer’s column has affected national politics, that statement isn’t the conclusion. The author also doesn’t rely merely on the timing of two events as a premise.

The author doesn’t say contradictory things about Roehmer’s column. The author doesn’t say “Roehmer’s column is X” but also “Roehmer’s column is Not X.”

The author objects to Roehmer’s impugning the motives of her adversaries. But the author uses this same tactic — he criticizes Roehmer’s motivation as “just an attempt to please her loyal readers.”

PrepTest 150 - Section 3 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action