PT110.S3.Q16 > Analytics

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

A company had signed an agreement saying that a contractor would not be financially responsible for failing to perform a construction job adequately. It was therefore morally wrong for that company to then sue the contractor for messing up the job.

The argument’s conclusion makes a statement that it’s morally wrong for the company to sue, but the premises don’t make any explicit moral claim - they only say that the company had agreed not to sue. The ethicist assumes that it’s morally wrong for the company to go back on its agreement. We’re therefore looking for some principle that explains why the company was actually doing something morally wrong in not following the initial agreement.

Would lead to the wrong conclusion. If it is only morally wrong for the company to go back on its agreement if the contractor finished their job, then it might actually be morally okay for the company to sue in this case, because the contractor messed up their part of the deal.

Wrong trigger. The contractor here was able to make restitution - the question is whether the company was morally wrong in seeking it.

Wrong trigger. The company did not induce the contractor to bungle the construction job.

Wrong trigger. The argument does not discuss the legal permissibility of the agreement.

This directly explains why the company was morally wrong to change its mind. They had promised not to seek restitution, and then sought restitution anyways, which (E) tells us is morally wrong.

Question

82% of people who answer get this correct

This is a moderately difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 142

151

75% 161

Question Stem Tags

PSA - find the rule

Stimulus Tags

Link assumption

Rule-application

Value judgment

Popularity Avg. score

160

156

158

161

82%

167

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 110 - Section 3 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action