PT126.S4.Q17 > 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

Opponents of the politician argue that we should reduce social spending. Their argument is based on “theoretical grounds.”

The politician concludes that we should not reduce social spending. The politician supports this conclusion by noting that the opponents should focus on the main cause of deficit spending.

Rather than responding to the “theoretical grounds” that the opponents use to support their conclusion, the politician merely says that the opponents should focus on something else. This doesn’t persuasively engage with the politician’s argument. Furthermore, the politician fails to provide any reason not to reduce social expenditure.

The opponents argue “on theoretical grounds” in favor of reducing social spending. The politician fails to show why those theoretical grounds are unpersuasive, or why the opponents’ argument is flawed. This makes the politician’s argument unconvincing.

The politician doesn’t attack the opponents’ character. He criticizes the focus of their argument, but the focus of an argument is not part of one’s character.

The politician describes the “main cause” of deficit spending. This doesn’t suggest the author believes deficit spending has only one cause. There can be other causes; the politicians identifies what he views to be the main one.

We don’t have any indication that the politician’s description of the opponents’ argument makes the opponents’ position more extreme. All we know is that the opponents’ argument is based on “theoretical grounds.” We don’t know whether this exaggerates the opponents’ position.

The specific level of spending that constitutes “excessive” is not relevant. The opponents argue that there is too much social spending, and the politician responds that we should not reduce social spending. Nothing requires the politician to specify a particular dollar amount.

PrepTest 126 - Section 4 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action