PT125.S2.Q23

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

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

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus gives a conditional chain of A→B→C; (A) gives two independent sufficient conditions for one necessary condition (food in apartment→ in refrigerator; food purchased in the last week → in refrigerator).

The stimulus concludes A→C; (A) concludes that there is a conditional relationship between the two independent sufficient conditions (food in apartment→ food purchased in the last week).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus gives a conditional chain of A→B→C; (B) gives one sufficient condition with two independent necessary conditions (food in refrigerator→ in apartment; food in refrigerator→ purchased in the last week.

The stimulus concludes A→C; (B) concludes that there is a conditional relationship between the two independent necessary conditions (food in apartment→ food purchased in the last week).

Mismatched conclusion. The stimulus gives the conditional chain A→B→C and concludes A→C; (D) gives a similar conditional chain (food in apartment→ food in refrigerator→ purchased in the last week) but then reverses the conditional relationship. Instead of concluding “food in apartment→ purchased in the last week,” (D) makes the invalid conclusion of “purchased in the last week→ food in apartment.”

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus gives a conditional chain of A→B→C; (E) gives one sufficient condition with two independent necessary conditions (food purchased in the last week→ in refrigerator; food purchased in the last week→ in apartment.

The stimulus concludes A→C; (E) concludes that there is a conditional relationship between the two independent necessary conditions (food in apartment→ food in refrigerator).