PT17.S1.Q7

PrepTest 17 - Section 1 - Question 7

Want a diagram-free walkthrough?

Hide analysis

Support To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person must practice. ██ ██████ ████████ █ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █ ███████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ███ ██ █████ █████ █████ ████ ████

Summary: Flawed Argument

The argument starts by telling us that practice is a necessary condition for someone to become an expert on a musical instrument:

expert → practice

Then, we're told that practicing a musical instrument for three hours a day is a sufficient condition for someone to eventually become an expert on that instrument:

practice three hours a day → expert

The argument concludes that if someone is an expert on a musical instrument, they must have practiced at least three hours every day:

expert → practice three hours a day
Show answer
7.

Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████

a

The conclusion fails ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ █ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████████ █████ ████████ ███████
Incorrect. The argument says that practicing three hours a day is sufficient to eventually make you an expert. The word "eventually" means that the argument does take into account that some people who practice three hours a day are not yet experts. The point of this premise is just that, if they keep practicing three hours every day, they will become experts.
9%
b

The conclusion fails ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████
Correct. This accurately rephrases the flaw we identified in our analysis. The stimulus tells us that practicing for three hours a day is sufficient to become an expert, but we don't know that practicing three hours a day is necessary to become an expert. It's possible that practicing for just two hours, or one hour, every day will be enough for some people to become experts.
87%
c

The conclusion fails ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ██ █████ █████ █████ █ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████

Incorrect. (C)'s claim that "if a person has not practiced for at least three hours a day, the person has not become an expert" translates to:

/practice three hours a day → /expert

By the contrapositive: expert → practice three hours a day

In other words, the contrapositive of this claim translates to: "If someone has become an expert, they must have practiced at least three hours a day." This is exactly what the conclusion says, so notice that it's just descriptively inaccurate to say that the conclusion fails to take this into account. And this claim that practicing three hours a day is necessary to become an expert is exactly what's not supported by the premises of the argument.

4%
d

The conclusion fails ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
Irrelevant. What "all music teachers" recommend isn't relevant to whether three hours of practice every day is necessary to become an expert. And we don't know if the three hours of practice the stimulus is talking about are "consecutive" or not.
0%
e

The conclusion fails ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ █████ ██ █████████
Incorrect. How many people are actually able to practice three hours a day is not relevant to deciding if practicing three hours a day is a necessary condition for becoming an expert on a musical instrument.
0%

Confirm action

Are you sure?