PT104.S1.Q17 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 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 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

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 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The author claims that for a society to be stable, its citizens must have stable goals. This is a conditional claim, which is supported by chaining together two conditional premises. One premise is that a stable society necessitates laws that increase the happiness of its citizens. The other is that creating laws which increase citizens’ happiness requires most people to have “a predictable and enduring set of aspirations”, i.e. stable goals.

P1. stable society → laws increase happiness

P2. laws increase happiness → stable goals

Therefore, stable society → stable goals

The claim that “a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens” is one of the premises used to establish the conclusion.

The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is a premise used to reach the conclusion. It’s not supported by anything else, so can’t be a conclusion.

This correctly identifies that the claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is one of the author’s premises. It supports the conclusion, and has no other role in the argument.

The argument doesn’t contain any claims that need to be refuted. The author takes both premises for granted, and they validly yield the conclusion. It’s that simple, no refutation involved.

The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness that increase happiness can’t be a consequence of anything because nothing else leads to it. It’s just stated without any support.

The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness doesn’t illustrate anything. It combines with another premise to lead to the conclusion, but not by providing an example.

PrepTest 104 - Section 1 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action