PT121.S1.Q18 > Analytics

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

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 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

SECTION 3 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 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

SECTION 4 · lr

According to the advocate, if you are correct to claim that it’s wrong to own a gasoline-powered car, then you should not have purchased an electric car made by a company that also makes gas cars. This is because doing so benefits a company that makes products which you object to.

The advocate uses factual premises to show that your car purchase benefits a company which also makes products you object to, but then jumps to the conclusion that you should not have your electric car. The advocate must be assuming a value judgment.

We need to find a rule which matches that assumption, that you should not purchase product from a company that also makes products you object to. That would justify the advocate’s argument.

This just says that being better than another action is not sufficient to make a certain action right. That can’t possibly lead to the conclusion we need, that you should not have your electric car.

This doesn’t trigger, because the argument doesn’t include any information about whether your electric car pollutes less than any other possible car.

This doesn’t trigger, because we have not been told about a hypothetical product whose use has no negative consequences. And this doesn’t say that “if there are negative consequences, you should not purchase”—that would be a backwards contrapositive!

This triggers—you believe that the car company does something wrong in producing gas cars. And it also leads to the correct conclusion, that you should not support that company, and therefore shouldn’t have your electric car.

This doesn’t trigger, because the argument never says that the car company makes no environmentally sound products.

Question

89% 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% 129

140

75% 151

Question Stem Tags

PSA - find the rule

Stimulus Tags

Link assumption

Rule-application

Popularity Avg. score

158

154

158

89%

164

155

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

PrepTest 121 - Section 1 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action