PT134.S3.Q12 > 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 author concludes that some books published by Garden Path are flawed. She builds her argument on two premises:

(1) Some composting books by Garden Path do not explain the differences between hot and cold composting.

(2) If a composting book does not explain the basics of composting, then it is flawed.

The author is attempting to read the conditional statement in the second premise from left to right, but we do not know if any of Garden Path’s books activate the sufficient condition. What we do know about their composting books, however, is that some of them don’t explain the difference between hot and cold composting. Assuming that if this information is omitted, then the basics are not explained bridges this gap, so this is the assumption we’re looking for.

(A) could only weaken the argument. We need to know that some gardening books are flawed, not that some aren’t.

Regardless of whether gardeners should try composting before understanding the basics, the conclusion is unaffected. Is composting before knowing the basics a flawed approach? Does Garden Path recommend this approach? Does this make the books flawed? There are too many unanswered questions with (B), so it is not necessary.

We know some of Garden Path’s books don’t address hot and cold composting, so (C) lets us conclude that they don’t explain the basics. Any book that fails to explain the basics is flawed, so some of Garden Path’s books are flawed. Answer choices that bridge conditional gaps between the premises and conclusion are necessary, so (C) is necessary.

We are looking for information on the books themselves, not about the people using them. Even if someone out there understands hot and cold composting but doesn’t understand the basics, it’s still entirely possible some of Garden Path’s books don’t explain these basics and thus are flawed.

(E) represents an inaccurate contrapositive of one of the premises. We know that if the basics are not explained, then the book is flawed. (E) gives us, if the basics are explained, then the book is not flawed. We need to know that some gardening books are flawed, not that some aren’t, so (E) isn’t necessary.

PrepTest 134 - Section 3 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action