PT121.S4.Q13 > 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 columnist concludes that some jurors must not have believed Tagowa’s testimony. His reasoning is that she stated after testifying that she believes Pemberton is guilty, while the jury found Pemberton not guilty.

We don’t know what Tagowa was called to testify about. Therefore, contrary to the columnist’s assumption, we don’t know if her testimony indicated that she thought Pemberton was guilty. It’s thus possible that the jurors both believed her testimony and found Pemberton not guilty.

Tagowa’s testimony could have been entirely unrelated to her reasons for believing that Pemberton is guilty. If so, the jurors could have believed Tagowa while still finding Pemberton not guilty.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing is with ought; it isn’t applicable here, because the author never makes a claim about what ought to be the case.

The columnist never opines on the actual guilt of Pemberton, so this can’t be the flaw.

The columnist concludes that the jury didn’t believe Tagowa, not that they thought she was dishonest. You can disbelieve a statement without questioning the speaker’s honesty.

The columnist does consider this: he concludes that not all jury members believed Tagowa’s testimony. This suggests that jurors disagreed about how much significance to attach to her testimony.

PrepTest 121 - Section 4 - Question 13

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action