PT115.S4.Q11 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 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 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 2 · 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

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23

PASSAGE 4

Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the opinion put forth in an article that everyone should carry around an ID card at all times is incorrect. He supports this assertion by saying that the writers of the article should not have remained anonymous if they were going to argue for the general public being required to carry identification.

This author is not attacking any specific points of the article or arguing against particular claims made by the writers. Instead, he identifies a behavior of the writers’ that he deems hypocritical and uses that to support his conclusion that they are wrong. This is flawed reasoning because the author tries to prove his opponents wrong not on the merits of their argument, but rather their actions that have nothing to do with any points they would have made in the article.

The author of this argument never criticizes the editor of the article; rather, he goes after the actions of the writers of the article.

The author does not argue against anything the writers said in their article, but instead against actions of theirs that he sees as contradictory to their point. Because the author did not address the merits of the writers’ argument, his conclusion is not supported.

The author accuses the writers of the article of being hypocritical, but nowhere in his argument does he mirror their hypocrisy. Instead, he takes their actions that contradict an opinion in their article as proof that their opinion is wrong.

The author does not attack the integrity of the writers. Instead, he attacks their opinion and bases his attack on their actions.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where an author interchanges two different meanings of a word. However, that is not present in this argument. The meaning of “anonymous” remains the same throughout the argument.

Question

79% 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% 127

142

75% 157

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Value judgment

Popularity Avg. score

154

79%

163

156

158

10%

159

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

PrepTest 115 - Section 4 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action