PT111.S4.Q7 > Analytics

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 attorney concludes that Mr. Smith should be found guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. She supports this by saying that Ms. Lopez testified that Mr. Smith loudly threatened her and he never refuted her testimony, so Mr. Smith has a violent character.

The attorney makes many unwarranted assumptions in her argument. She assumes that just because Smith loudly threatened Lopez, he must have a violent character, and that just because he has a violent character, he’s guilty of assaulting Jackson.

She also assumes that just because Smith never refuted Lopez’s claim that he threatened her, her claim must be true.

Note the questions stem: “The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that ____.” The correct answer will fill in this blank with an assumption made by the attorney.

The attorney does not reason that aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character. Instead, she assumes that Smith’s aggressive behavior (his alleged loud threat) is a sure indicator of his violent character.

The attorney doesn’t bring up any of Smith’s testimony at all, nor does she assume that it’s unreliable.

This points out one of the attorney’s fallacious assumptions. She assumes that, because Smith didn’t refute Lopez’s claim, her claim must be true. She uses this to argue that Smith has a violent character and thus committed the crime.

The attorney supports Lopez’s testimony by saying that it was never refuted. She doesn’t assume that Lopez’s testimony is reliable because Lopez isn’t loud or aggressive.

The question stem asks for an answer in terms of what the argument reasons. In contrast to (E), “the attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that” having a violent character is necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes.

Question

72% 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% 128

147

75% 167

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Lack of support v. false conclusion

Link assumption

Popularity Avg. score

160

165

72%

166

155

23%

162

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

PrepTest 111 - Section 4 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action