PT105.S2.Q10 > 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 · lr

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 hypothesizes that banning red cars could save lives, based on the claim that a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color.

This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a positive correlation and then assumes that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. She assumes that red cars cause car accidents simply because more red cars are involved in accidents. She goes on to conclude that banning red cars could save lives.

She overlooks the possibility that some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation— maybe there’s something that causes people to buy red cars and to be involved in car accidents.

Irrelevant— even if she does accept this, it has nothing to do with her argument. Her argument is about the correlation between red cars and accidents; insurance company rates are just context.

Irrelevant— she may not consider repair costs, but this isn’t the flaw because repair costs don’t affect her argument. She hypothesizes that banning red cars could save lives; it doesn’t matter how much they cost to repair.

This describes an alternative hypothesis that the author ignores. She assumes red cars cause accidents, without considering that some other, underlying factor may be causing the correlation— maybe reckless drivers just like red cars and that’s why more red cars are in accidents.

Irrelevant— the exact percentage of red cars doesn’t matter, since we already know that “a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents” than cars of other colors.

The author never makes this assumption. She just assumes that some car accidents result in some loss of life. Based on this assumption and the assumption that red cars cause accidents, she concludes that banning red cars could save lives.

PrepTest 105 - Section 2 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action