PT111.S3.Q2 > 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · 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

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that even some legal professionals cannot tell fiction from reality because of television. As evidence, she provides a quote from an attorney following the death of an actor who played a lawyer on TV: “Although not a lawyer, Mr. Burr strove for such authenticity that we feel as if we lost one of our own.”

The author’s reasoning is flawed because her evidence contradicts her conclusion. She concludes that some lawyers can’t tell reality from fiction, but her example shows a lawyer who can. The lawyer she quotes says that the actor felt like “one of our own,” even though the actor was not a lawyer. This shows that the lawyer could in fact tell reality from fiction.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “hasty generalization.” But the author concludes that some legal professionals can’t distinguish fiction from reality, not that all legal professionals can’t.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “attacking the source,” but the author doesn’t make this mistake. She simply draws a conclusion about the lawyer based on the lawyer’s statement. She isn’t making an unwarranted attack on the lawyer.

The author never addresses whether the lawyer is qualified to evaluate the actor’s performance. She just argues that the lawyer thinks that the actor was a real lawyer. Whether or not he was a good actor is irrelevant.

“The usual way in which lawyers are portrayed” on TV is irrelevant to the author’s argument. She’s just claiming that one lawyer’s comment about one actor’s portrayal shows that some legal professionals can’t distinguish reality from fiction.

In his comment about the actor, the lawyer explicitly says, “Although not a lawyer...,” showing that the lawyer can distinguish reality from fiction. The author ignores this when she concludes that, based on this quote, some lawyers cannot distinguish reality from fiction.

PrepTest 111 - Section 3 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action