PT106.S2.Q18 > 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 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 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

Dobson concludes that the people who built the ring of stones in Britain were not knowledgeable about celestial events. He supports this by saying that, because there are many stones in the ring, there’s a good chance that one pair of stones would point in a celestially significant direction.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a rejection of someone’s argument with a rejection of their conclusion. Dobson concludes that the historians’ conclusion is false, simply because their evidence doesn’t establish their conclusion. But just because someone’s evidence is insufficient doesn’t mean you can assume that the opposite of their conclusion is true.

Dobson concludes that the people who built the stone ring didn’t understand celestial events, just because the historians’ evidence fails to establish their conclusion. But a lack of evidence doesn’t mean you can automatically assume the opposite of someone’s conclusion.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of internal contradiction. Dobson doesn’t make this mistake. His argument is flawed, but it isn’t contradictory.

Actually, Dobson treats his evidence as if it absolutely establishes his conclusion, even though it doesn’t establish it at all.

The builders of the ring were either knowledgeable about celestial events or they were not; this isn’t a matter of opinion. It may be Dobson’s opinion that there’s a high chance that a pair of stones would point to something significant, but this isn’t the flaw in his argument.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. Dobson never makes this mistake in his argument.

PrepTest 106 - Section 2 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action