PT124.S2.Q4 > 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

The industrialist concludes that his factory’s emissions are not a health risk to nearby residents. He supports this by saying that the only testimony about the emissions comes from local residents, but only a trained scientist can assess the danger, and none of the residents are scientists.

The industrialist’s reasoning is flawed because he fails to provide any evidence for his conclusion. Even if the residents’ testimonies cannot prove that the emissions are a health risk, the industrialist still needs to provide evidence for the conclusion that the emissions are not a health risk.

In other words, he assumes that the environmentalists’ conclusion is false simply because their support is weak.

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person or group making the argument, rather than the argument itself. The industrialist doesn’t make this mistake. He attacks his opponents’ support and doesn’t make any assumptions about their motives.

The argument is only about the safety of emissions from the industrialist’s factory. Emissions from any other sources are irrelevant.

The industrialist fails to provide any evidence for his conclusion that the emissions are safe. He claims that only scientists can testify that the emissions are safe, but he never actually presents any scientists’ testimonies.

The industrialist only concludes that the factory’s emissions do not present a health risk. He doesn’t need to discuss any benefits of the factory to the community.

The industrialist doesn’t make this mistake. He uses the term “health risk” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.

PrepTest 124 - Section 2 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action