The more modern archaeologists learn about Mayan civilization, the better they understand its intellectual achievements. ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ █████ ████████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ███ █ ██████ █████ ██ █████████████ ████████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███████ ███████ █ ████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███████████
The author concludes that the Mayan people in general had a strong understanding of math. He supports this by pointing out that the writings of their religious scribes showed a strong understanding of math.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where the author draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence or an unrepresentative sample. Here, the author makes the generalization that all Mayans understood math based only on a sample of Mayan religious scribes. But the religious scribes may not be representative of the people in general.
The argument's reasoning is most ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
fails to provide ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████████ ████████████
The author doesn't define “intellectual achievement,” but he doesn’t need to. So (A) does not describe why his argument is vulnerable to criticism.
bases a generalization ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████████████████
The author bases a generalization— that Mayan people in general had a strong understanding of math— based on a sample of Mayan religious scribes that is likely to be unrepresentative.
overlooks the impressive ████████████ ██ █████ ████ █████████████
The author’s argument is only about the Mayan civilization. The achievements of other civilizations are irrelevant.
relies on two █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in different ways. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he uses the term “scientific” clearly. Also, his conclusion is about the Mayans’ mathematical knowledge, not their scientific knowledge.
takes a mere ███████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author doesn’t make this mistake; his argument doesn’t use causal reasoning at all.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.