PT122.S2.Q10 > 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

Megan doesn’t make an argument, instead just stating a claim that once people’s basic needs are met, they only pursue additional wealth in order to increase their status or prestige.

Channen argues that not everyone thinks about wealth in the way Megan describes. To show this, Channen points out that money is the universal medium of exchange. This means that even someone who doesn’t care about status or prestige might want more money in order to buy material goods. This acts as a hypothetical counter-example to Megan’s claim.

We need to find a point of disagreement. Megan and Channen disagree about the reasons people might have for pursuing wealth after their basic needs are met. Megan thinks the only reason is status and prestige, but Channen thinks there are other possibilities.

Both speakers agree that people can pursue wealth beyond what is required for their basic needs. Their disagreement is just about what would motivate someone to do so.

Like (C) and (D), neither speaker discusses rationality at all. The argument between Megan and Channen is about what people’s motivations are, not whether those motivations are rational.

Like (B) and (D), neither Megan nor Channen says anything about rationality or irrationality. What’s at question here is why people would seek wealth past a certain point, not whether the reasons for doing so are rational.

Like (B) and (C), rationality is never brought up by either speaker. The question of whether seeking additional wealth is rational is simply outside the scope of Megan and Channen’s discussion.

Megan disagrees with this: her only claim is that this statement is not true. Channen, however, agrees and offers a hypothetical example to support this idea. This is the point of disagreement.

PrepTest 122 - Section 2 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action