PT108.S2.Q12 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · 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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that a person’s freedom is always worth the risk of losing their life, citing an example of someone locked in a room with no hope of escape and who, as a result, has nothing to lose.

The author uses an example of someone locked in an inescapable cement room with nothing to lose to support the conclusion that one’s freedom is always worth the risk of losing one’s life. However, the argument’s reasoning is flawed because the author’s specific, extreme example doesn’t necessarily justify the generalized statement that one’s freedom is always, in all cases, worth the risk of losing one’s life.

The author doesn’t presume this. She argues that one’s freedom is always worth the risk of losing one’s life, but she never says that nothing is more valuable than freedom. The author may believe that many things are more valuable than freedom.

The author doesn’t state or imply that she thinks it’s always possible to rebel physically against an encroachment on one’s freedom, and her stance on this issue is irrelevant to the soundness of her conclusion.

This is the flaw that the author commits. Using a single, extreme example of someone locked in a cement room, the author then makes a universal claim that one’s freedom is always more valuable than the risk of losing one’s life. The example doesn’t necessarily justify the claim.

The author’s argument isn’t concerned with the freedom of others. The author’s argument is only concerned with one’s own freedom and life.

We don’t know if the author overlooks this. However, even if she does, it has no bearing on whether her conclusion, that one’s freedom is always more valuable than the risk of losing one’s life, is valid.

PrepTest 108 - Section 2 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action