PT122.S1.Q1 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the statement “all suspected criminals are criminals” is true. He supports this with an analogy, saying that the statement “all gray rabbits are rabbits” is also true.

The author analogizes between two things that are not relevantly similar to one another. Just because all gray rabbits are rabbits doesn't mean all suspected criminals are criminals, because the connection between being a gray rabbit and a rabbit is different from the connection between being a suspected criminal and a criminal.

Gray rabbits are a subset of all rabbits, but suspected criminals are not a subset of all criminals. Some suspected criminals may indeed be criminals, but some may not.

Like (B), the analogy rests on the relationship between being a gray rabbit and a rabbit, as analogized to the relationship between being a suspected criminal and a criminal. The relationships between being a criminal and a rabbit or being suspected and being gray are irrelevant.

Like (A), the analogy rests on the relationship between being a gray rabbit and a rabbit, as analogized to the relationship between being a suspected criminal and a criminal. The relationships described in (B) are irrelevant.

All gray rabbits are rabbits, but not all suspected criminals are criminals. So the author’s argument relies on analogizing between two kinds of relationships that are not relevantly similar. One is a subset vs. superset relationship and the other is not.

This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the author’s argument. She claims that all gray rabbits are rabbits; this allows for the fact that some rabbits are not gray.

This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the author’s argument. She claims that all suspected criminals are criminals; this allows for the fact that some criminals are not suspected.

PrepTest 122 - Section 1 - Question 1

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action