PT141.S2.Q12 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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

SECTION 3 · 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

SECTION 4 · lr

The chairperson shouldn’t have released the report because she didn’t consult the other members about releasing it.

The argument bases a prescriptive conclusion (”the chairperson shouldn’t have done this one thing”) on a purely descriptive premise (”the chairperson didn’t do this other thing”). The premise could lead to the conclusion if we supplied the value-judgment assumption that if the chairperson failed to consult the other members, she was wrong to release the report.

Contrapositive: if she didn’t have consent from most other members, it wasn’t permissible to release the report. Since she didn’t consult the others to begin with, she can’t possibly have gotten consent from most (or any!) of them. Thus she shouldn’t have released the report.

Irrelevant. This is a purely descriptive assumption. Since the argument’s premise is likewise descriptive, there’s no way this assumption can lead to the argument’s prescriptive conclusion. The right answer must involve a value judgment that tells us when something’s wrong to do.

The sufficient condition here isn’t triggered by the argument’s premise; we don’t know whether any members actually did have serious reservations. All we know is that they weren’t consulted.

Contrapositive: if not all members would have agreed when consulted, the chairperson wasn’t justified. The sufficient condition here isn’t triggered by the argument’s premise; we don’t know what the other members would have done. All we know is that they weren’t consulted.

PrepTest 141 - Section 2 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action