PT112.S3.Q19 > 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 argument appeals to a specific example to deny a sufficient condition. Because the author’s father likes turnips but does not like potatoes, the author concludes that one liking potatoes is not sufficient to prove that one likes turnips.

This is a mistaken negation. The argument offers an example that doesn’t actually negate a conditional relationship. The author claims that there must be some people who like potatoes but not turnips, but appeals to an example of someone who likes turnips but not potatoes. The author’s father does not like potatoes, so we have no evidence that establishes anything about people who do like potatoes.

Wrong flaw. This attempts to derive a conditional rule (all paperback books are inexpensive) from an example (an expensive book that’s not a paperback). The stimulus attempts to use an example to deny the existence of a conditional rule.

This commits a mistaken negation by providing an example that doesn’t actually negate a conditional relationship. The argument cites an example of a work that is not a novel, then attempts to deny the existence of a conditional rule pertaining to works that are novels.

No flaw. This simply triggers a sufficient condition. If all ornate buildings were built before the 20th century, then it follows that this house was built before the 20th century since it’s ornate.

No flaw. This gives an example that actually does negate a conditional relationship. If Erica enjoys physics but not math, then it follows that not all people who enjoy physics also enjoy math.

Wrong flaw. This mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. Doing one’s own oil changes is not necessary to being a car fanatic. The stimulus, in contrast, performs a mistaken negation by citing an irrelevant example.

PrepTest 112 - Section 3 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action