PT130.S1.Q6 > 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that when a country faces a financial crisis, the government doesn’t violate free-market principles by limiting how much foreign investors and lenders can withdraw in order to prevent collapse. He supports this with an analogy, saying that the right to free speech doesn’t allow one to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, and the harm caused by a rush of withdrawals can be just as dangerous as a stampede in a theatre.

The author supports his argument by analogizing with a similar case where similar principles are limited by the need to prevent harm. Just as free speech doesn't allow shouting "Fire!" in a crowded building because it's dangerous, the author argues that a free market shouldn't have to allow foreign investors and lenders to withdraw money during a financial crisis.

The author uses an analogy to show that a set of principles (the free market) is limited in a specific way, just as a similar principle (free speech) is limited in a similar way. In both cases, the principles are limited when it is necessary to prevent a harm or danger.

The author doesn’t use his conclusion to explain observed facts. Actually, he doesn’t present any observed facts at all.

The argument doesn’t involve any experimental results, so the author doesn’t use experimental results to support his conclusion.

The author never argues that one explanation of a phenomenon is incorrect. Instead, he points to two similar principles that are limited in similar ways.

There isn’t an empirical generalization in the argument, because the author’s evidence isn’t based on an observation or experiment. Instead, the author analogizes the limits of the free market with the limits of free speech.

PrepTest 130 - Section 1 - Question 6

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action