PT128.S3.Q20 > 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 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 Question 28

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

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

Totalitarian systems are good at preventing conflict because the powerful have control. All totalitarian systems are illegitimate. Therefore, it is not true that all political systems that aim at preventing conflict are legitimate.

The initial principle provided by Professor Gandolf refers to systems that aim at preventing conflict, not systems that are good at preventing conflict. The response to his principle focuses on totalitarian regimes and states that they are both illegitimate and good at preventing conflict. It does not state, however that they aim at preventing conflict. In order for this to be a good counterexample, there must be an assumption that totalitarian regimes actually do aim at preventing conflict.

The argument is organised to demonstrate that there are illegitimate political systems that aim to prevent conflict. The possibility that there also happen to be legitimate systems without that aim is not relevant.

This would go the opposite direction and actually undermine the argument. If this is true, then totalitarian regimes do not aim at preventing conflict, and do not work as a counterexample to the principle.

This ensures that there is a good counterexample to the principle - there are illegitimate political systems that aim at preventing conflict. If this were not true, then the Professor Gandolf’s principle could still be correct.

This argument is focused specifically on political systems that aim at preventing conflict, and whether or not they are legitimate. A statement about a different group of political systems that fail to prevent conflict and their legitimacy isn’t relevant.

To disprove the principle, the argument only needs one example of an illegitimate political system that aims at preventing conflict. The presence of other illegitimate political systems is not necessary in order to do this.

PrepTest 128 - Section 3 - Question 20

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action