PT126.S1.Q18 > 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 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author is concluding that there’s an exception to a general rule. She starts with the general rule: it’s not absurd (i.e., it makes sense) to criticize someone when that person is being critical, because there are just some situations where we need to make a negative assessment of someone. (In other words, sometimes person A will criticize person B for being critical, and it’ll make sense for you to say, “Hey, person A, you’re being too harsh in my assessment. Ease up on person B.”)

But the author then counters that general rule with an exception: it’s a good idea to not be judgmental. Why? Because being judgmental is more than just making a negative assessment. Being judgmental means you’re not even trying to understand the other person.

The conclusion is the author’s counter-claim: “there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.” In other words, it’s a good idea to not be judgmental.

This is support for why it’s wise to not be judgmental. It shows why being judgmental is wrong.

The author’s arguing that there’s one specific instance in which one shouldn’t criticize others: when one is being judgmental. She’s not arguing that it’s always absurd to criticize anyone for being critical. (She thinks it’s fine if you criticize someone for being critical as long as you’re not judging that person.)

This is context. It’s the general rule that the author is countering. The rule is that it’s not absurd (i.e., it makes sense) to criticize someone when that person is being critical. The author counters by saying that it’s still best not to criticize that person if you’re being judgmental about it. That counter-claim is the author’s conclusion: “there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.”

This is context. It’s support for the general rule that it’s not absurd (i.e., it makes sense) to criticize someone when that person is being critical. The author’s conclusion is a counter to that general rule: it’s still best not to criticize that person if you’re being judgmental about it. That counter-claim is the author’s conclusion: “there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.”

This is the counter-claim that the author’s arguing for: it’s a good idea not to be judgmental.

PrepTest 126 - Section 1 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action