PT134.S1.Q3 > 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

PASSAGE 2

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 political scientist concludes that equality does not require bland uniformity, as many critics believe. She supports this by claiming that a society can achieve greater equality and enhance diversity by promoting complementary human interests.

The political scientist counters a position held by critics— that total equality would force everyone into a common mold. She does this by noting that the critics’ argument relies on the assumption that equality requires bland uniformity. She then attacks this assumption by arguing that, actually, a society can achieve greater equality and enhance diversity by promoting complementary human interests. By attacking their assumption, the political scientist undermines the critics’ argument and supports her own position.

The political scientist does undermine a view, but she doesn’t do so by showing that its acceptance would lead to undesirable consequences. Instead, she undermines a view by attacking an assumption on which it relies.

The author claims that critics’ objection to total equality rests on the assumption that equality requires bland uniformity. She rebuts this objection by attacking the assumption, saying a society can achieve more equality and diversity by promoting complementary human interests.

The political scientist does attack the critics’ view, but she doesn’t make any claims about their character or suggest that they’re motivated by self-interest. Instead, she attacks an assumption on which their conclusion depends.

The political scientist simply doesn’t apply this method of reasoning. She doesn’t claim that something that is true of a group or set has to be true of each part of the set. Instead, she counters an argument by attacking one of its key assumptions.

The political scientist undermines a claim— that total equality forces everyone into a common mold. But she doesn’t undermine a counterexample to that claim.

PrepTest 134 - Section 1 - Question 3

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action