PT129.S2.Q8 > 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 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

The psychiatrist concludes that something doesn’t exist because she has no evidence supporting its existence.

This argument features a cookie-cutter flaw based on a lack of evidence. Just because there is no evidence supporting a claim does not make that claim false. For example, maybe the disorder is incredibly rare, or the psychiatrist hasn’t seen that many patients.

The right answer will feature this same reasoning: Someone concluding something doesn’t exist because they have no evidence that it does.

Wrong flaw. Anton concludes that something is seldom fatal due to a lack of evidence, which is flawed since we don’t know if Anton has seen enough patients to draw this conclusion. The stimulus concludes that something is definitely not real due to a lack of evidence, however, so (A) doesn’t match.

Wrong flaw. (B) concludes that something is probably not real due to a lack of evidence, but the stimulus concludes that something is definitely not real due to a lack of evidence, so (B) doesn’t match.

Wrong flaw. We’re given evidence that a treatment is usually not effective, and a conclusion stating that the treatment should not be pursued. This is flawed because the treatment might still help in this instance. The stimulus, however, concludes that something isn’t real because of a total lack of evidence, so (C) doesn’t match.

Wrong flaw. We’re given a past trend (Natasha driving to work) and a conclusion that incorrectly assumes this trend will continue in the future. The stimulus, however, concludes that something isn’t real because of a lack of evidence, so (D) doesn’t match.

Jerod concludes that something doesn’t exist (deer in his area) because he has no evidence supporting their existence. The psychiatrist from the stimulus also concludes that something doesn’t exist because she has no evidence supporting its existence, so (E) matches.

PrepTest 129 - Section 2 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action