PT107.S3.Q25 > 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

SECTION 2 · 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 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that more people hold the belief “elected officials should resign if indicted” than the belief “elected officials should resign IF convicted.” This is based on a a survey that showed 50% of those polled believe “elected officials should resign if indicted,” and that 35% believe “elected officials should resign ONLY IF convicted.”

The author mistakenly interprets the results showing that 35% believe “elected officials should resign ONLY IF convicted” as if they show that 35% believe “elected officials should resign IF convicted.” In other words, the author confuses a statement about what’s necessary for resignation with a statement about what is sufficient for resignation. “Only if” introduces a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

There’s nothing inherently flawed about drawing a conclusion based on a sample. What would be flawed is relying on an unrepresentative sample, but that’s not what (A) says. In any case, we don’t have any reason to think the sample is unrepresentative.

The relevant survey results refer to a belief that conviction is necessary for resignation. But the author mistakenly thinks this result tells us about the belief that conviction is sufficient for resignation. This confuses a necessary condition — resignation — for a sufficient condition.

There is no ambiguity in any of the words used in the argument. The author does not confuse different meanings of the same term. The issue is the author misinterprets a belief that conviction is necessary for resignation as a belief that convication is sufficient for resignation.

The conclusion compares the number of people who hold two beliefs. This isn’t a conclusion “about a specific belief.” Also, although the premises involve two beliefs, one of them matches a belief mentioned in the conclusion. So there aren’t “two different specific beliefs.”

There is nothing contradictory about the premises. It is possible for 50% to believe officials should resign if indicted and for 35% to believe officials should resign only if convicted.

PrepTest 107 - Section 3 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action