PT118.S1.Q17 > 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

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The government’s determination of an individual’s rights isn’t necessarily correct. This is supported through conditional logic: If the government’s view is correct, then people only have the moral rights that the government chooses to grant; if people only have the moral rights the government chooses to grant, then people do not have moral rights. Thus, the government’s view is not necessarily correct. This argument rests on the assumption that people do have moral rights.

The conclusion puts a limitation on government correctness in determining individual right: “That does not mean that the government’s view is necessarily the correct view.”

The author rejects this. Her rejection of (A) is the unstated premise (assumption) that leads to the main conclusion—the government isn’t necessarily correct.

This is a good rephrase of the conclusion. (B) has support from the rest of the argument. If we add the assumption that people have moral rights, this would be an airtight argument.

This is in direct conflict with the author’s argument. She states that the government isn’t necessarily correct in determining individual rights.

We know that the police will do what the government says, but we don’t know if the police will agree. Also, the claim about the police serves as context; it isn’t part of the argument.

This is a value judgement unsupported by the argument—the author doesn’t address what anyone should or shouldn’t do. She’s discussing whether the government is correct in its judgments.

PrepTest 118 - Section 1 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action