PT151.S4.Q23 > Question

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

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the trade agreement is the result of compromises between competing interest groups. He supports this with the following premises:

(1) If legislation is the result of negotiation and compromises between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups.

(2) All the groups involved in the trade agreement are unhappy— or unsatisfied— with it.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author treats “compromises” as necessary for “unsatisfied,” but according to his premises, “compromises” is part of the sufficient condition.

In other words, it’s possible that the trade agreement was not the result of compromises, even though all of the interest groups were unsatisfied with it.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The author doesn’t make this mistake. His premises may not support his conclusion well, but they are distinct from his conclusion.

The author concludes that “compromises” is necessary for “unsatisfied,” merely from the claim that compromises lead to interest groups being unsatisfied. But it’s possible that the trade agreement is not the result of compromises, even though its interest groups are unsatisfied.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. The author doesn't use the same key term in different ways. He does assume that “unhappy” interest groups are also “unsatisfied,” but this is reasonable in the context of his argument.

The author doesn’t assume that no legislation can satisfy all interest groups. Instead, he mistakenly assumes that if a piece of legislation does not satisfy all interest groups, then it must be the result of compromises.

The author doesn't make this mistake. He bases a conclusion about a piece of legislation on premises that are also about a piece of legislation.

PrepTest 151 - Section 4 - Question 23

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action