PT110.S2.Q10 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18

PASSAGE 4

Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 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 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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 Question 27

Westside is currently in violation of its charter. If Westside were following its charter, it would have some students with special needs. (Contrapositive: if Westside doesn’t have any students with special needs, it isn’t following its charter.) But Westside doesn’t have any students with learning disabilities.

The first premise is about special needs, but the second premise is about learning disabilities. How do we know those are interchangeable? If Westside had students with special needs that weren’t learning disabilities, it would be following its charter.

Therefore, to guarantee his conclusion, the author must assume that all students with special needs have learning disabilities. (Contrapositive: all students without learning disabilities do not have special needs.)

This is the reverse of what we want. If Westside has students with special needs, it’s following its charter. (A) leaves open the possibility that Westside has students with special needs but not learning disabilities. Consequently, it doesn’t guarantee the author’s conclusion.

The stimulus already told us this; the gap in the argument is that the school might have students with special needs, but not learning disabilities.

This is an “ought” statement about the school should do. But the argument in the stimulus is about what the school actually is doing.

Contrapositive: all students without learning disabilities are not special needs students. If so, given that no Westside students have learning disabilities, we know that none of them have special needs. Thus, the school is violating its charter.

The author’s conclusion is that the charter is currently being violated, so this is irrelevant.

PrepTest 110 - Section 2 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action