PT116.S3.Q18 > 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 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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 Question 28

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

PASSAGE 3

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

The local citizen claims that the measure to ban spectators from the courtroom was inconsistent with the stated reasoning for taking the measure. Since government authorities stirred up public interest with requests for help, the citizen claims that it’s inconsistent for public interest to be invoked as the reason for restricting courtroom attendance.

This is an example of an equivocation fallacy because the citizen uses the term “public interest” ambiguously. In the citizen’s statements, the term “public interest” describes how much the public cares about the case. When the judge used the term, however, it referred to what would be beneficial to the public. The government authorities' call for help does not necessarily contradict the court's barring of spectators because what's beneficial to the public is a different concept from what the public is interested in.

The citizen doesn’t generalize—the argument is concerned only with a particular court's actions in one particular case.

This accurately describes the way the term “public interest” is treated as though it consistently refers to the same concept even though the term’s meaning shifts throughout the stimulus.

The central flaw with the argument is the inconsistent use of the term “public interest”. (C) doesn’t describe a flaw because no matter who specifically made the plea for help, the alleged contradiction could still occur. The citizen's conclusion isn't that the judge contradicted herself; it's that the action of calling for help to find the victim is inconsistent with the action of barring spectators from the courtroom. These can still be inconsistent even if the actions were taken by different people.

The citizen's premises describe actions that took place and things government authorities said. There's no reason to think these descriptions are designed to provoke an emotional reaction or are otherwise sensationalistic.

The citizen does not compare which right is more important. The citizen merely claims that two actions are inconsistent. One can claim that two actions are inconsistent without believing that one right is more important than another.

PrepTest 116 - Section 3 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action