PT135.S2.Q5 > 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 · 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

PASSAGE 3

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

SECTION 4 · lr

Lahar concludes that the club should decide meeting agendas by majority vote. He bases this on the fact that the club’s constitution provides three options: unanimous consent (which he says is unlikely), assigning the task to committee (which he says leads to factionalism and secret deals), or majority vote. By rejecting two of the constitution’s options, Lahar concludes that the club should use majority vote to decide meeting agendas.

Lahar uses process of elimination to reach his conclusion. He points out that the club’s constitution offers three options for deciding meeting agendas, and by eliminating two, he concludes that the remaining option should be implemented.

Lahar does reject certain procedures, but not on constitutional grounds. In fact, we know that all three procedures are allowed by the club’s constitution. Instead, Lahar rejects one procedure because it’s unlikely to be effective, and one because it leads to factionalism.

Lahar concludes that one procedure— majority vote— should be used to decide meeting agendas, not to reach every decision in the club.

Lahar doesn’t suggest any changes to the constitution at all. Instead, he presents the three constitutional options for deciding meeting agendas, eliminates two, and supports the remaining one.

Lahar recommends using majority vote to decide meeting agendas. He reaches this conclusion by eliminating the other options in the constitution: unanimous consent (because it’s unlikely) and assigning the task to a committee (because it leads to factionalism and secret deals).

Lahar doesn’t argue against anyone advocating for alternative options. Instead, he eliminates the alternative options by claiming that they’ll be ineffective or lead to undesirable consequences.

PrepTest 135 - Section 2 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action