PT133.S3.Q19 > 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 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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

The professor concludes that any single history book gives a distorted view of the past, because it reflects its author's biases. She supports this with an analogy, saying that, similarly, you can't form an accurate view of your physical surroundings based on just one momentary glimpse, since each glimpse comes from a single perspective.

The professor supports her conclusion by using an analogy to show that her argument is relevantly similar to another compelling argument. By appealing to an analogous and compelling argument, the professor suggests that her argument is also compelling.

The professor attempts to show that one argument— that a history book distorts the past due to the author's biases— is correct by analogizing it with another, presumably reasonable, argument— that you can't get an accurate view of your surroundings from just one brief glimpse.

The professor doesn’t suggest that absurd consequences would follow if her conclusion were false. Instead, she analogizes her argument with a similar, strong argument to suggest that her argument is also strong.

The professor supports her argument by using an analogy to appeal to another, presumably compelling argument. By appealing to an analogous and strong argument, the professor suggests that her argument is also strong.

The professor simply doesn’t make this argument. Instead, she uses an analogy to support her conclusion by appealing to a similar and strong argument.

The author does implicitly suggest that a single history book is an unreliable source because it reflects a biased human perspective. However, a history book is not “a type of human cognition.” It might reflect human cognition, but it isn’t itself a type of human cognition.

PrepTest 133 - Section 3 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action