PT107.S3.Q7 > 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 newsletter concludes that volunteering can benefit one’s well-being. It supports this by noting that retired people who volunteer tend to show fewer signs of aging than retired people who don’t, and that volunteers are stronger socially, mentally, physically, and economically than non-volunteers.

This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the newsletter sees a positive correlation and then jumps to the conclusion that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, it overlooks two key alternatives:

(1) The causal relationship could be reversed— maybe stronger people tend to volunteer more, not the other way around.

(2) Some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something that causes people to both be stronger and to volunteer.

This might be true; we don’t have enough information to know either way. But even if it is true, (A) doesn't describe the logical flaw in the newsletter’s argument. It’s based on that logical flaw that “the inference drawn above is unwarranted.”

This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the newsletter’s argument. Interpreting “well-being” in this way is entirely reasonable.

This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the newsletter’s argument. Some of those who don’t volunteer might also be younger than some volunteers; it doesn’t matter to the argument, which only compares retired volunteers with their “nonvolunteering contemporaries.”

This might be true, but it doesn't describe the flaw in the newsletter’s argument. The argument assumes that volunteering causes a stronger mental outlook. It doesn’t assume that growing older causes a change in mental outlook.

This describes an alternative hypothesis that the author ignores. She assumes that volunteering causes increased well-being, without considering that instead, those with a higher well-being might be more likely or more able to volunteer.

PrepTest 107 - Section 3 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action