PT116.S2.Q21 > Question

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 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

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

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

All three people the magazine quoted were close friends, and the magazine didn’t make that clear. Therefore, the magazine’s article about the moral outrage of residents was misleading.

The argument moves from a specific claim about what the newspaper did (took quotes only from three friends) to a more general claim that the entire article was misleading. It does not, however, provide an explicit statement of why it’s misleading to only interview a group of close friends. We’re therefore looking for some principle that justifies that leap, and explains why what the magazine did is actually misleading.

Wrong trigger. Nothing in the argument suggests that the magazine presented the opinions of the friends as though they were experts.

Wrong trigger. Nothing in the argument tells us that the population is likely to be evenly divided on the issue.

Wrong trigger. We don’t know whether their opinions were widely held or not - if they were, then this would actually support the opposite conclusion (that the magazine was not being misleading).

Wrong trigger. Nothing in the argument suggests that the magazine implied the friends must agree with each other - it simply reproduced the quotes the friends gave.

This explains why what the magazine did is misleading. Because the three were close friends, they might be nonrepresentative of the general public, but the magazine used them to show public opinion, which this answer choice tells us is misleading.

PrepTest 116 - Section 2 - Question 21

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action