PT151.S4.Q11

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3
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 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 Question 26

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 151 - Section 4 - Question 11

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Support A new treatment for muscle pain that looked very promising was tested in three separate studies. ████████ ███ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████

Method of Reasoning

The argument proceeds by describing problems with some of the evidence that a new treatment for muscle pain is effective. Because it may lack compelling positive evidence, the argument concludes that the new treatment is likely ineffective.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter example of an argument attempting to establish that a claim is false by pointing out a lack of support for that claim. The flaw lies in assuming that a claim is false simply because there isn't compelling support for it. Given that the evidence for the drug’s effectiveness is problematic, the argument should simply conclude that the drug’s effectiveness is uncertain. The drug could still be effective even if the studies supporting that judgment are flawed.

Analysis by AlexandraNash

Show answer

11.

The flawed nature of the ████████ █████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████

since the judges ██ █ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ███ █████████ █ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ █ ███ ███

This establish that a claim is false by pointing out a lack of support for that claim—the same flaw as the stimulus. The cake’s victory in this contest may not prove that it’s a good cake, but it’s wrong to assume that it’s therefore a bad cake.

since some people ███ ████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████████ ████

Wrong flaw. This assumes that because certain people don’t achieve a particular outcome (catching fish), those people aren’t seeking that outcome; it confuses intention and result. The stimulus instead argues that a lack of support means a claim is false.

since some foods ████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████████

Wrong flaw. This is a part-to-whole fallacy: it assumes that some people’s entire diets lack nutrition because certain parts of their diets do. The stimulus claims that a lack of support means a conclusion is false, a different flawed approach.

since all scarves ███ ██ █████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████

Wrong flaw. This assumes something about the origin of a phenomenon based on what can be observed about the phenomenon today. On the other hand, the stimulus cites a lack of support for a claim to conclude that the claim is false.

since all members ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████████

Wrong flaw. This assumes something about the motivations of people based on a conflict of interest. The stimulus isn’t concerned with anyone’s motivation—it assumes that a claim is false just because it lacks support.

Difficulty

Question

88% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

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

25% 120

125

75% 143

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Parallel flawed method of reasoning

Stems that tell us the stimulus will exhibit flawed reasoning, then ask us to identify the answer choice that preserves that flaw.

Stimulus Tags

Lack of support v. false conclusion

Stimuli that reason from premises saying "A has not been proven" to a conclusion saying "A must be false."

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

88%

161

151

155

152

158

Question history

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