PT116.S3.Q16 > 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 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

Some miracles of nature fail to catch our attention. Why? Because everything that’s commonplace and ordinary fails to catch our attention.

The conclusion is about miracles of nature, but the premise says nothing about miracles of nature. How to get from the premise to the conclusion? The premise tells us that all things that are commonplace and ordinary fail to catch our attention. We can make the argument valid if we assume that some things that are miracles of nature are commonplace and ordinary.

Knowing that miracles of nature aren’t ordinary and commonplace doesn’t validate the author’s conclusion. We need an answer choice that says some miracles of nature are ordinary and commonplace.

We know all things that are ordinary and commonplace fail to catch our attention, so if some things that are ordinary and commonplace are miracles of nature, then some miracles of nature fail to catch our attention. The argument’s conclusion follows logically if (B) is assumed.

The author says that all things that are commonplace and ordinary fail to catch our attention, so (C) is redundant because it’s implied in the argument’s premise.

This says nothing about miracles of nature, so it can’t be right. The conclusion is about miracles of nature, yet the argument’s premise never discusses miracles of nature. The correct answer choice must bridge this gap.

Question

92% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 125

136

75% 147

Question Stem Tags

Sufficient assumption

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Quantifier

Popularity Avg. score

158

92%

164

154

153

154

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

PrepTest 116 - Section 3 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action