PT137.S2.Q18 > 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 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 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The censor concludes that it’s okay to ban anarchist novels that would hurt society. As support, she tells us that all anarchist novels have two objectionable characteristics: a subversive outlook and the depiction of wholesale violence.

Sure, anarchist novels have some bad traits, but does this make it okay to ban them? The censor certainly thinks so. She’s assuming that if books share these traits, then a ban is okay. She also talks specifically about anarchist novels that would harm society, so we don’t need to justify a ban on all of them—just the harmful ones.

(A) leads to the wrong conclusion. We’re looking for something that proves it is permissible to ban a book, not something that shows it isn’t.

Wrong trigger. (B) gives us two sufficient conditions for a book to be banned: the depiction of wholesale violence, and that the ban itself does more good than harm to society. We know the books do depict wholesale violence, but we only know that the books themselves would hurt society, with no information on the effects of the ban. We need both sufficient conditions to be present to use this statement, so we can’t use it.

(C) leads to the wrong conclusion. If the sufficient and necessary conditions were swapped, this would support our conclusion; (C), however, only lets us prove that the books shouldn’t be banned, not that they should.

We know that all anarchist novels share the same two objectionable characteristics, which allows us to use this conditional statement. (D) also addresses the same subset of books mentioned in the conclusion—books that would hurt society—so this proves our conclusion.

(E) 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 the books shouldn’t be banned, not that they should.

PrepTest 137 - Section 2 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action