PT136.S4.Q11 > 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 Nan Paulsen’s reviews were not criticism, and she therefore should not have won the criticism award. She offers three main premises as support.

(1) In order to receive the award, a work should be a criticism.

(2) If one does not write about art, then they don’t reveal important cultural truths.

(3) Paulsen did not write about art.

This argument features a classic linking assumption between 2 premises. The author is attempting to take the contrapositive of premise one by asserting that Paulsen’s work did not reveal important cultural truths, but this leaves a gap between revealing cultural truths and whether a work is a criticism. This gives us a strong prediction:

If a work does not reveal important cultural truths, then it is not a criticism.

Wrong trigger. The premises never tell us if Paulsen tries to portray cars as works of art.

(B) translates to, if a review of objects doesn’t reveal important truths, then it is not a criticism. Paulsen’s review of objects didn’t reveal important cultural truths, so (B) allows us to validly conclude it wasn’t a criticism and therefore should not have won the award.

Wrong trigger. Paulsen might have intended her reviews to reveal important cultural truths while still failing to do so.

Wrong trigger. We have no clue whether Paulsen considers herself to be a critic.

Leads to the wrong conclusion. If the sufficient and necessary conditions were swapped, this would support our conclusion; (E), however, only lets us prove that something should be considered a criticism, not that it shouldn’t.

PrepTest 136 - Section 4 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action