PT136.S2.Q21 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · 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 3 · 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

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the bridge renovation wasted taxpayers’ money. This is based on the fact that a commission reported that the Souther Tier Project was wasteful, and the bridge renovation was a part of that project.

The author assumes that what applies to the whole (Souther Tier Project) must apply to a part(the bridge renovation). This overlooks the possibility that the bridge renovation might not have been a waste, even if the overall project was a waste. Perhaps the project was wasteful because of a different component besides the bridge renovation.

The argument concudes that a part (bridge renovation) has a certain quality (waste of money) merely on the grounds that the whole to which it belongs (Southern Tier Project) has that quality.

The conclusion is not about government waste in general. It’s about the bridge renovation and whether that specific thing was wasteful.

The argument does not attack the character of the mayor. The evidence concerns the Southern Tier Project being a waste of money, and the fact that the bridge renovation was part of the project.

(D) describes circular reasoning. No part of the evidence assumes the truth of that conclusion. The conclusion is that the bridge renovation was a waste of money; the evidence does not presuppose that this is true.

PrepTest 136 - Section 2 - Question 21

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action