PT125.S2.Q5 > 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 Thibodeaux failed to appear on time for a quarterly board meeting. This is based on the fact that any officer who fails to appear on time to a quarterly board meeting or who misses 2 monthly meetings must be suspended. And, Thibodeaux is an officer who was suspended, but who did not miss 2 monthly meetings.

The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. Being late to a quarterly meetings and missing 2 monthly meetings are each sufficient for suspension. But they aren’t necessary for suspension. Thibodeaux might have been suspended for other reasons.

We know that Thibodeaux didn’t miss any monthly meetings. Lateness to a monthly meeting is irrelevant, since we’re not told that this leads to a suspension. (Lateness to quarterly is sufficient for suspension, but we don’t know about lateness to monthly.)

The author assumes that nothing besides lateness to quarterly or missing 2 monthly could be sufficient for suspension. This overlooks the possibility that other things could also be sufficient for suspension. That’s why Thib. doesn’t have to have been late to a quarterly meeting.

The assumption required to establish the conclusion is the idea that there’s no other way to be suspended besides the two conditions mentioned. That assumption actually would be sufficient to establish the conclusion, so (C) doesn’t describe a flaw in this argument.

The exact timing involved in being “late” is irrelevant. We can still label someone as “late” without knowing exactly how late they were.

The length of time Thibodeaux has been an officer is irrelevant. None of the conditions in the rule concerning suspension relate to years of experience as an officer.

PrepTest 125 - Section 2 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action