PT118.S3.Q6

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

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 4 · 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

PrepTest 118 - Section 3 - Question 6

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Editorial: The premier's economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services can be met. ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████████ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ █ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █████████

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The editorialist concludes that the premier shouldn't listen to the advisor who claims that it's possible to reduce taxes without significantly reducing government services. This is because her economic advisor was convicted of embezzlement.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is an ad hominem argument because the editorialist does not engage with the substance of the advisor’s claim, but instead attacks his character. The advisor being guilty of a crime in the distant past tells us nothing about the feasibility of reducing taxes without cutting government services.

Analysis by Kevin_Lin

Show answer

Which one of the following ██ █ ████████████ █████████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████

rejecting a proposal ██ ███ ███████ ████ █ ██████████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████

The editorialist doesn’t mention a particular implementation of the proposal, let alone give evidence that it’s likely to fail.

trying to win ███████ ███ █ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ █████████

The editorialist argues against the advisor’s proposal rather than attempt to win support for it. Further, there’s no mention of people’s fear of any outcome.

criticizing the source ██ █ █████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████

This is exactly what the editorial does since it personally attacks the character of the advisor rather than engaging with the substance of his claim.

taking lack of ████████ ███ █ █████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ████ █████

The argument never cites the lack of evidence for the claim, but rather, attacks the character of the one who made it.

presupposing what it ████ ███ ██ █████████

This would describe circular reasoning—when an argument assumes its conclusion in one of its premises—which this argument doesn’t do. This argument is flawed because it’s a personal attack on the advisor that fails to address the substance of his claim.

Difficulty

Question

99% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

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

25% 120

120

75% 130

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stems that ask us to articulate a flaw in the stimulus' argument, either in abstract terms or by pointing out a weakness.

Learn more

Stimulus Tags

Ad hominem

Counterarguments that attack opponents directly instead of the substance of their reasoning, often accusing opponents of hypocrisy or bias.

Learn more

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

148

152

99%

166

157

161

Question history

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