PT136.S4.Q4 > Analytics

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 company spokesperson concludes that the attack by Household Products magazine that Filterator X water filters do not remove significant amounts of chemical contaminants is inaccurate. He supports this by appealing to the experience of millions of people who own FIlterator X filters and are satisfied with their performance.

The company spokesperson assumes that the fact that millions of customers are satisfied with their Filterator X filters means that the filters must be removing significant amounts of chemical contaminants from the water. This means that he also assumes that customers are able to tell whether their filters are removing chemical contaminants.

This doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t deal with the question of whether or not the filters actually remove chemical contaminants from water. Customers may be satisfied because of improved taste, but this doesn’t tell us anything about the chemical contaminants.

This weakens the argument by showing that the company spokesperson’s assumption is false. Just because customers are satisfied doesn’t mean that the filters are removing chemical contaminants.

The fact that Filterator X customers have very contaminated water doesn’t change the attack that the filters aren’t effectively removing those chemical contaminants. So this doesn’t weaken the spokesperson’s conclusion that the attack is unfounded.

Whether or not Filterator X customers read Household Products is irrelevant to the argument and doesn’t weaken the spokesperson’s conclusion that the magazine’s attack on the filters is false.

This doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t address the assumption that customer satisfaction accurately reflects the filters’ effectiveness.

Question

97% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

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

25% 121

130

75% 139

Question Stem Tags

Weaken

Stimulus Tags

Fact v. belief v. knowledge

Link assumption

Popularity Avg. score

152

97%

164

156

153

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

PrepTest 136 - Section 4 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action