PT134.S3.Q11 > Analytics

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

Sigerson proposed an ethical guideline that prevents politicians from accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. The author concludes that this proposal is dishonest. This is based on the fact that Sigerson has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics.

The fact that Sigerson accepted contributions in the past doesn’t indicate that he believes his proposal shouldn’t apply to him or that his past acceptance of contributions is ethically acceptable. So there’s no basis to call the proposal “dishonest.” Sigerson may have taken advantage of the lack of a rule against accepting such contributions and now wants to ban those contributions for everyone going forward.

The argument isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.

The author doesn’t reject the proposal; she simply calls it dishonest. Also, the basis of the conclusion isn’t that there’s been an inadequate argument for the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s past acceptance of contributions.

Whether other politicians would resist the proposal is irrelevant, because the argument doesn’t concern the likelihood that the proposal will pass.

The basis of the author’s conclusion isn’t that Sigerson is unfamiliar with the issues raised in the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s own acceptance of contributions in the past.

In calling Sigerson’s proposal dishonest, the author seems to think that Sigerson’s past conduct is relevant. But Sigerson isn’t trying to cheat the rules; Sigerson has to follow the new guidelines, too, if the proposal is passed. So there’s no dishonesty in the proposal.

Question

79% of people who answer get this correct

This is a moderately difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 137

149

75% 161

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Value judgment

Popularity Avg. score

157

160

158

161

79%

166

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 134 - Section 3 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action