PT102.S3.Q14 > 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

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

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 · lr

The herbalist concludes that there’s no reason not to try drinking herb juice, even though some doctors say it might be harmful. According to the herbalist, doctors just want to keep a monopoly on medical treatments, implying that we should ignore them.

This is a cookie-cutter ad hominem flaw. The herbalist attacks the doctors’ character to try to discredit them instead of addressing the actual claim the doctors are making.

The herbalist doesn’t bring up any consequences of rejecting the claim that herb juice is safe to drink.

The herbalist never makes any claims that are inconsistent with each other.

The herbalist rejects the doctors’ claim that herb juice may be dangerous by attacking the doctors’ motives, and doesn’t address the possibility of herb juice being dangerous. However, the doctors’ claim might still be accurate regardless of their motives.

The herbalist’s evidence, that doctors have ulterior motives, does not presuppose the truth of the conclusion that there’s no reason not to try herb juice.

The herbalist isn’t discussing any two events that happen one after the other, nor does the argument propose a causal relationship.

PrepTest 102 - Section 3 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action