PT117.S4.Q1 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 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 Question 27

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 · lr

The physician concludes that Jones did not swallow the chemical in question. As support, the physician references the following relationship:

Jones swallowed the chemical→mineral deficiency in blood→ skin inflammation

Jones’s skin was not inflamed, so the physician said that he did not swallow the chemical.

The physician assumes that there wouldn’t be any delay in the reactions. If there is any delay in the effects of either the chemical or the mineral deficiency, it could be the case that an insufficient amount of time had passed for Jones’s skin to become inflamed. If this is the case, Jones’s clear skin would be because not enough time had passed, not because he didn’t swallow the chemical.

The argument is based on the effects of consuming the chemical; these effects would occur regardless of whether Jones knew about the dangers.

We care about skin inflammation because it could be an indicator of whether or not Jones consumed the chemical; for the sake of the argument, we don’t care about skin inflammation that occurred independent of Jones’s potential consumption of the chemical.

This weakens the argument because it gives an alternate explanation for Jones’s clear skin. Jones’s skin could be clear because 48 hours hadn’t yet passed, not because he didn’t consume the chemical. Not enough time would have passed for the physician to make her conclusion.

The argument is about whether or not Jones consumed the chemical in this specific instance; Jones’s history of working with the chemical is not relevant to the physician’s argument.

The physician’s argument is based on the fact that Jones’s skin is NOT inflamed, so other potential causes of skin inflammation are not relevant here.

PrepTest 117 - Section 4 - Question 1

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action