PT102.S4.Q23 > 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

Premise 1:

Understand architecture of PC → computer scientist (”only” introduces necessary condition)

Premise 2:

Appreciate tech advances → understand architecture of PC (”only” introduces necessary condition)

Conclusion:

Computer scientist → Appreciate tech advances (”only” introduces necessary condition)

The premises allow us to conclude that appreciating tech advances requires that one be a computer scientist. But the author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions of this inference. The author mistakenly thinks that being a computer scientist requires appreciating the tech advances. This overlooks the possibility that there might be some computer scientists that don’t appreciate the tech advances.

(The conclusion would have been valid if it had said “only computer scientists appreciate the tech advances.”)

This is false. The argument allows us to infer that appreciating the advances requires being a computer scientist.

The possibility described in (B) undermines the argument by showing that one can be a computer scientists without needing to appreciate the tech advances; this shows why the conclusion doesn’t have to be true.

The author never argued that computer scientists never appreciate anything else besides technology advances. So the fact allegedly ignored has no impact on the reasoning.

We can draw a logical conclusion — appreciating the tech advances requires being a computer scientist. The flaw isn’t that the author drew a conclusion when he shouldn’t have drawn any conclusion, it’s that the author drew an improper conclusion.

The first premise states that only computer scientists understand the architecture of PCs. So the argument does not assume that “everyone” (including non-computer scientists) understands the architecture of PCs.

PrepTest 102 - Section 4 - Question 23

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action