PT122.S1.Q25 > 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 gas station owner concludes that car manufacturers should not seek to increase fuel efficiency. She argues that smaller cars offer less protection and are more likely to be severely damaged in crashes, and that the benefits of greater fuel efficiency aren't worth the increased risk to human lives.

The gas station owner concludes that manufacturers shouldn't try to increase fuel efficiency just because one way to do this— making cars smaller— is dangerous for human lives. She overlooks the possibility that there might be other ways to improve fuel efficiency without risking lives. In other words, she argues that because one method is too risky, the goal shouldn't be pursued at all.

The gas station owner never assumes this. In fact, she’s not talking about the likelihood of getting into an accident at all. She just claims that, when they are in accidents, smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged and so they pose a risk to human lives.

The owner concludes, on the basis of the claim that making cars smaller to make them more fuel efficient is unacceptable, that manufacturers shouldn’t pursue increased fuel efficiency at all. But perhaps there are other ways to increase fuel efficiency that are perfectly safe.

The gas station owner does draw a conclusion about what should be done, but her premises are not all about factual matters only. The premise “greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives” is subjective.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, in which the conclusion merely restates a premise. The gas station owner doesn’t make this mistake; her premises and conclusion are distinct.

The gas station owner says that increasing fuel efficiency reduces air pollution, but she never assumes that it’s the only way to reduce air pollution.

PrepTest 122 - Section 1 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action