PT123.S2.Q2 > Explanation

SECTION 1 · 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

SECTION 2 · 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 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

Wrong flaw. Unlike the stimulus, (A) doesn’t name two categories and define their traits as distinct; rather, (A) names two categories (diligent studiers and non diligent studiers) and defines their traits as sometimes the same (diligent studiers make good grades, and non diligent studiers sometimes do, too). (A) isn’t valid because there’s no evidence that somewhat diligent studiers make somewhat good grades, but the stimulus’ flaw is different: it’s about an assumption regarding the outcome of mixing two traits together.

This argument rests on the idea that chemicals with differing traits combine to produce an average of their traits. Type A chemicals are extremely toxic, and Type B chemicals are nontoxic, so a combination must be moderately toxic. This is the same variation of the cookie-cutter part vs. whole flaw: the author assumes that combining two parts together forms a whole whose traits must sit squarely between the original parts.

No flaw. This is a valid argument! If all students at Hanson School live in Green County, then anyone in the Perry family who attends Hanson School must live in Green County. Similarly, if all students at Edwards School live in Winn County, then anyone in the Perry family who attends Edwards school must live in Winn County.

No flaw. This is a valid argument! If all transcriptionists know shorthand and all engineers know calculus, and Bob has been both a transcriptionist and an engineer, then he must know both shorthand and calculus (assuming, of course, that he hasn’t forgotten these skills)!

Wrong flaw. Unlike the stimulus, where the flaw is a variation on the part vs. whole flaw, this argument rests on the flaw of mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. It’s true that all of Kenisha’s dresses are well made, but that doesn’t mean all well-made dresses are Kenisha’s! Similarly, all of Connie’s dresses are badly made, but that doesn’t mean all badly made dresses are Connie’s! We can’t determine the ownership of these specific dresses based on the premises.

Pause (K)

Seek backward 10 seconds (J)

Seek forward 10 seconds (L)

Mute (M)

Keyboard shortcuts

Play/Pause

Seek backward 10 seconds

Seek forward 10 seconds

←

Seek backward 5 seconds

→

Seek forward 5 seconds

Mute/Unmute

↑

Volume up

↓

Volume down

Speed up

Speed down

Closed-Captions On/Off

Enter/Exit PIP

Enter/Exit Fullscreen

Closed-Captions On (C)

Speed

Enter PIP (I)

Enter Fullscreen (F)

Still confused about this question?

Live members can ask our 99th–percentile tutors for help.

PrepTest 123 - Section 2 - Question 2

Question explanation

Ask a tutor

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action