PT129.S3.Q2 > 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 politician concludes that those at the meeting shouldn’t have been persuaded by Kuyler’s argument. As support, the politician says that Kuyler’s argument implied that it wouldn’t be proper to enter a contract with the government, but Kuyler’s company has entered many government contracts.

This is a source attack. The politician doesn’t say anything about the merits of Kuyler’s argument, or give any support fot the claim that those at the meeting shouldn’t believe the argument. The politician just says that Kuyler’s company’s past actions are inconsistent with the implications of Kuyler’s argument

This is descriptively inaccurate. The argument says that “most” weren’t persuaded, not that nobody was. Also, Kuyler’s inability to persuade isn’t the only support for the politician’s claim. The politician’s argument rests on inconsistencies between Kuyler’s actions and his argument.

This is descriptively inaccurate. The argument does not reference any testimony, nor is there any indication that any source is likely to be biased.

This is the flaw. The politician doesn’t say anything about the persuasiveness of Kuyler’s argument. Instead, the politician focuses on the fact that Kuyler’s company has acted in a way that is inconsistent with what the politician claims that Kuyler’s argument implied.

This is descriptively inaccurate. The politician isn’t saying that Kuyler didn’t make enough of an argument; the politician is just saying that Kuyler’s company’s actions don’t line up with the implications of Kuyler’s argument.

This is descriptively inaccurate. The politician’s argument is based on Kuyler’s actions; the politician doesn’t cite popular opinion as a reason that people shouldn’t believe Kuyler.

PrepTest 129 - Section 3 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action