PT112.S4.Q6 > 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 commissioner concludes that the only way to solve the problem of the revenue shortfall is by adopting his plan. He supports this with three premises:

(1) Budget forecasters predict a billion-dollar shortfall next year.

(2) We can't increase funds, so we must cut spending.

(3) This plan would cut spending and save a billion dollars.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “his plan” as necessary for “solve the problem.” But according to the premises, “his plan” is sufficient, not necessary.

In other words, the commissioner’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility that some other plan or solution could also solve the revenue shortfall. His plan might not be the only option.

We have no reason to doubt the forecasters’ prediction and we can’t assume that it’s uncertain.

The commissioner confuses an adequate (or sufficient) solution— his plan— with being a required (or necessary) solution. But just because his plan would solve the problem doesn't mean that it’s the only way to solve the problem.

The commissioner points to budget forecasters’ prediction about next year’s revenue shortfall. He relies on experts, but he doesn’t do so inappropriately since the experts’ prediction is within their own field.

The commissioner uses clear and precise language throughout his argument. He doesn't inappropriately rely on vague language.

The commissioner’s claim that there is no way to increase funds is a premise; we must accept that it’s true. So (E) doesn't describe a flaw in his argument.

Question

89% 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% 131

142

75% 154

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Eliminating options

Popularity Avg. score

159

89%

167

161

155

159

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

PrepTest 112 - Section 4 - Question 6

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action