PT124.S2.Q12 > 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 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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

Campisi concludes that Yang is not justified in inferring that yeast was known as a leaven in 1200 B.C. just because leavens were known at that time. Why? Because, according to Campisi, other leavens than yeast could have been known in 1200 B.C.

Campisi undermines Yang’s conclusion by introducing an alternative explanation to account for Yang’s evidence. The evidence only shows that some unspecified leaven was used in 1200 B.C., so by pointing out the possibility that other leavens than yeast could have been known at that time, Campisi offers an alternative explanation.

Campisi isn’t trying to support Yang’s conclusion, but rather to undermine it. Also, Campisi never proposes alternative evidence.

Yang presumes that there are no alternative leavens other than yeast that could have been known in 1200 B.C. By introducing other leavens as an alternative explanation for Yang’s evidence, Campisi questions that presumption.

Campisi does consider the evidence behind Yang’s conclusion, and rejects its support for Yang’s conclusion on the grounds that there are alternative explanations available. Also, Campisi never denies the truth of Yang’s conclusion—unsupported doesn’t mean false.

Campisi does not argue that another specific conclusion is supported by Yang’s premises, only that Yang’s conclusion is not convincing based on its premises.

Campisi does not question the evidence that a leaven was known in 1200 B.C., only offers alternative possible explanations for that evidence in order to question Yang’s conclusion.

PrepTest 124 - Section 2 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action