PT125.S2.Q22 > 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 if Professor V is correct, glassblowing originated outside of Egypt. This is based on a premise that establishes if Professor V is correct, there’s not enough evidence for the claim that glassblowing began in Egypt.

The author assumes that lack of sufficient evidence for a claim’s truth implies that the claim is false. This overlooks the possibility that a claim can still be true (glassblowing originated in Egypt) even if we don’t have enough evidence to prove that it’s true.

There is nothing flawed about disagreeing with experts. What matters is whether you have enough evidence to support your conclusion. Whether that conclusion goes against experts’ views has no bearing on the quality of the argument.

By using “if Professor V is correct,” the conclusion is conditioned on the hypothetical situation in which Professor V is correct. This does not assume that the professor is in fact correct. So the author doesn’t assume that Professor V’s claims are true.

The premise asserts that if Professor V is correct, there’s not enough evidence to say that glassblowing began in Egypt. We accept this premise as true. It doesn’t matter whether we know the criteria for adequate evidence.

The author labels the view of “most historians” as the “traditional view.” We have no reason to think this labeling is wrong. In any case, whether a view is traditional has no impact on the argument. The author never rejected a view because it was traditional or not traditional.

The author confuses inadequate evidence for the truth of a claim (that glassblowing began in Egypt) as evidence that the claim is false. This is a flaw because a claim can still be true, even if there’s not enough evidence to prove that it’s true.

PrepTest 125 - Section 2 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action