PT108.S2.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

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

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 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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 claims that “one’s being at home is not required for one’s being in one’s own house.” To back up this claim, we are offered an example: if you visit a house that you own but rent to someone else, you can be in your house but not at home (because it’s someone else’s home).

The claim that one can be at home without being at one’s house doesn’t actually form part of the argument. Instead, it’s a piece of context that introduces the substance of the argument. Because the conclusion only focuses on being in one’s house without being at home, being at home without being at one’s house is ultimately irrelevant to the conclusion.

The claim about being at home without being in your house doesn’t actually support the conclusion at all, because the conclusion is just about being in your house without being at home. That means it can’t be essential for the conclusion.

The author never states a point that the conclusion is meant to refute; the argument isn’t aimed against anything.

This accurately describes the claim about being at home without being in your house. True or false, it doesn’t affect the conclusion, which is just about being in your house without being at home. If you removed this claim from the stimulus, it wouldn’t change anything.

The author never claims that the phrase “at home” is ambiguous. The argument is meant to establish an unexpected relationship between being at home and being in your house, which is possible because each of those concepts is clear.

The claim about being at home without being in your house doesn’t contradict the conclusion at all. It’s entirely possible for both statements to be true; neither interferes with the other.

PrepTest 108 - Section 2 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action