PT121.S4.Q11 > 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

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

The psychiatrist concludes that traumatic events do not contribute at all to the development of phobias. His reasoning is that not all phobia suffers have trauma, and not all trauma victims have phobias.

The psychiatrist assumes that, for trauma to cause phobias, each trauma must be linked to a phobia, and vice versa. But a causal relationship doesn’t require an absolute connection to be valid (unlike a conditional one). For example, consider how smoking causally decreases life expectancy. That doesn’t mean that everyone who smokes dies young, or that everyone who will die young smokes.

The psychiatrist is denying the very existence of a causal relationship, so confusing cause and effect can’t be the flaw.

The psychiatrist is denying one proposed explanation for a class of events; he isn’t saying that no causal explanation of them is possible.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning; it isn’t applicable here, because the author’s conclusion and premises are distinct.

The psychiatrist assumes that, for traumas to play any role in causing phobias, there must be an absolute link between the two. But the bar for causality isn’t that high. X can be a partial cause of Y even if X and Y don’t always appear together.

On the contrary, the psychiatrist is denying that a causal connection exists, so this can’t be the flaw.

PrepTest 121 - Section 4 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action