PT125.S2.Q15 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 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

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 Question 26

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

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

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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 4 · lr

The author concludes that humans are not superior to animals. This is based on a subsidiary conclusion that humans are not rational. The author supports this sub-conclusion with the fact that humans knowingly pollute the world’s air and water, and engage in farming practices that hurt the soil. To the author, this behavior doesn’t meet the definition of “rational,” which is “the capacity for well-considered thinkiong and behavior.”

The author assumes that knowingly damaging the environment is not well-considered thinking and behavior. The author also assumes that engaging in behavior that isn’t well-considered implies the lack of ability (capacity) to engage in such behavior. This overlooks the possibility that humans have the ability to be well-considered, even if they don’t always act that way.

There’s nothing contradictory about the definition — the capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. This definition makes logical sense. The author tries to show that human behavior doesn’t fit this definition, but that doesn’t mean the definition is contradictory.

The author assumes that humans act in ways that aren’t well-considered. But the author doesn’t assume humans are aware this behavior is allegedly irrational. The definition of “rational” doesn’t involve humans’ awareness of rationality.

The author never suggested animals are not also irrational. So he didn’t need to show that animals aren’t irrational.

The author concludes that humans are not superior to other animals. That doesn’t mean the author believes humans cannot be worse. If humans are worse than animals, that doesn’t undermine the author’s position.

The author fails to realize that humans may possess a capacity (for well-considered thinking/behavior) without displaying it in a given activity (various activities that hurt the environment). One can possess the ability to do something even if one doesn’t always do it.

PrepTest 125 - Section 2 - Question 15

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action