PT128.S3.Q24 > 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

The author concludes that the revolutionary party was not overambitious and caused NO suffering. This is based on the fact that most of the party’s goals were achieved quickly and that the party didn’t have enough power to cause GREAT suffering.

There are two key assumptions. First, the author assumes that achieving most goals quickly implies that there weren’t many overambitious goals. This overlooks the possibility that there were a lot of goals that the party still didn’t achieve. Second, the author assumes that not being able to cause GREAT suffering implies that the party caused NO suffering. This overlooks the possibility that the party still caused some suffering, even if it wasn’t great.

There’s nothing contradictory about claiming that the party achieved most goals and that it didn’t have enough power to cause great suffering. Both can be true.

The author’s premises establish that the party didn’t cause GREAT suffering. But this doesn’t establish what the conclusion asserts — that the party caused NO suffering.

The argument didn’t need to establish anything about the critics of the revolutionary party. The critics’ claims are mentioned purely as context in the first sentence; the argument’s reasoning doesn’t rely on critics’ perceptions of the party.

The author does provide some evidence that the goals were not overambitious — the party achievedmost of its goals quickly. This evidence doesn’t prove that the party was not overambitious, but it does constitute at least some evidence it wasn’t ambitious.

The argument didn’t need to consider other major criticisms. It focusd on two particular criticisms about being overambitious and causing great suffering and tried to rebut those points. But the argument doesn’t take a position on any other issues.

PrepTest 128 - Section 3 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action