PT106.S3.Q15 > 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

The stimulus does not provide an argument, just a pair of claims. First, humans have superior cognitive abilities compared to other animals. Second, once humans are aware of their superior cognitive faculties, they can only achieve happiness through activities that involve gratifying their cognitive faculties.

The stimulus assumes that both of the claims presented are factually true. This means it assumes:

that no animals have superior cognitive faculties compared to humans; and also

that no humans who are aware of their superior cognition can be made happy through non-cognitively-gratifying activities.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. First, we don’t actually know if these animals actually are capable of rational communication—they just seem to be. Second, even if they were capable, we still wouldn’t know if they had superior cognition to humans.

This weakens the claims in the stimulus. People familiar with intellectual stimulation can reasonably be said to be aware of their cognitive faculties. If many such people prefer physical (i.e. non-cognitive) pleasures, that undermines the stimulus’ second claim.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. First, we can’t assume that classical and pop music are relevant to distinguishing cognitive and non-cognitive sources of happiness. Second, we don’t know if this “someone” is aware of their cognition, and thus within the domain.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. Like (E), we have no idea if this provides an example of people who are aware of their cognition but still gain happiness from non-cognitive activities—we can’t assume either of those factors.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. Like (D), both factors of the stimulus’ second claim are unclear. Are serious athletes aware of their cognition or not? Is gourmet food a non-cognitive source of happiness or not? We don’t know.

PrepTest 106 - Section 3 - Question 15

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action