PT118.S3.Q6 > 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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

PrepTest 118 - Section 3 - Question 6

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action