PT150.S3.Q24 > 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 each (every single one) of the proposed regulations would help the economy. This is based on the following:

Every proposed regulation will reduce the trade deficit.

The trade deficit is so large that it weakens the economy.

The author assumes that the proposed regulations won’t have any effects that could harm the economy that outweigh the benefit to the economy from reducing the trade deficit. This overlooks the possibility that the net effect of the regulations could harm the economy or end up not changing the economy.

The author points out that the deficit is currently large enough to weaken the economy. But the author doesn’t assume that the deficit will grow if we don’t do anything to reduce it. The reasoning is based purely on the current deficit.

The author does not assume that we must reduce the trade deficit to strengthen the economy. There can be other ways to help the economy; the author is simply asserting that the proposed regulations would have the effect of helping the economy.

The author does not “merely” appeal to the authority of the committee. The author does not say that we should pass the regulations because the committee recommends them. Rather, the author points to the effect the regulations have on the trade deficit.

This possibility points out that even if a regulation reduces the trade deficit, it may have other effects that end up hurting the economy (ex. they might also enact tariffs or increase taxes, etc.). The net effect of a regulation might not end up helping the economy.

(E) describes a whole-to-part fallacy. But the argument gives us a premise about “every regulation” — this is about each regulation. And the conclusion is also about each regulation. So the argument doesn’t start with a statement about the whole.

PrepTest 150 - Section 3 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action