PT112.S4.Q8 > 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 archaeologist concludes there’s no earlier historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations. She supports this by pointing out that Egyptian and Mayan pyramids were different in design and purpose: Egyptian pyramids were tombs for rulers, while Mayan pyramids were used as temples.

The archaeologist concludes that no historical link exists simply because the pyramids had different designs and uses. She ignores the possibility that the two cultures could still have influenced each other’s pyramids despite those differences.

This is also an example of the cookie-cutter flaw of concluding that an opponent’s conclusion is false, simply because you’ve wrecked their argument’s support. In order to conclude that no historical link exists, the archaeologist must assume that there is no other relevant evidence that supports it.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. The archaeologist doesn’t make this mistake; she uses “evidence” clearly and consistently throughout her argument.

The archaeologist never appeals to emotion. She does try to appeal to reason by claiming that the pyramids had different designs and uses; it just doesn’t support her argument very well.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the premise is simply a restatement of the conclusion. The archaeologist doesn’t make this mistake; her premises and conclusion are distinct.

The archaeologist uses words precisely and correctly. She just fails to consider other potentially relevant evidence.

The author assumes that no other evidence supports the existence of an earlier historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations. She claims that her opponents’ conclusion is false, simply because she believes that she’s weakened one piece of support for it.

PrepTest 112 - Section 4 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action