PT121.S1.Q21 > 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

Catmull concludes that historians never determine what actually happened in the past. Why? Because different historians always arrive at different conclusions when studying the same events.

Catmull claims that, because historians disagree, they never arrive at the truth. The flaw in his reasoning is that some historians may still have arrived at the truth, even if not all of them have. The fact that they disagree shows that not all of them can be right, but it doesn’t show that all of them are wrong.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning; it doesn’t apply here. Catmull’s conclusion is an unwarranted leap from his premise, not a restatement of it.

Catmull assumes that, because historians disagree about the past, none of their conclusions can be true. He overlooks the possibility that some historians may have accurately determined what happened, even without universal agreement.

Catmull likens historians’ conclusions to fiction, but he doesn’t suggest that this means they have no value whatsoever.

Catmull’s premises don’t contradict either, so this isn’t the flaw.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficiency and necessity; it isn’t applicable here because Catmull isn’t using conditional logic.

Question

92% of people who answer get this correct

This is a moderately difficult question.

CURVE

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

25% 136

144

75% 152

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Popularity Avg. score

158

92%

164

154

152

156

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

PrepTest 121 - Section 1 - Question 21

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action