PT137.S3.Q19 > 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 ecologist rejects a hypothesis that sea butterflies deter predators with chemicals they produce, citing an experiment where each chemical was tested one at a time and none was found to deter predators on its own.

This is an example of the part-to-whole fallacy because the ecologist ignores the possibility that, while no individual chemical appears to deter predators on its own, some combination of chemicals could do so when mixed together. The experiment only tested each chemical one at a time, though the chemicals would presumably all be present together in a living sea butterfly.

The argument doesn’t assume that the theories cannot both be true because it never assesses the theory about their appearance. The ecologist only rejects the chemical explanation.

The argument never mentions a correlation. The experiment was meant to demonstrate that chemicals don’t produce the effect of deterring predators, but was flawed because it only tested chemicals one at a time.

There’s no sufficient condition for avoiding predators, nor does the ecologist claim that anything is necessary to avoid predators. The flaw is citing an experiment that isolated chemicals rather than tested them together.

This describes how the ecologist uses an experiment that shows that no individual chemical deters predators, but ignores the possibility that multiple chemicals could deter predators when mixed together.

This describes circular reasoning, where an argument assumes its conclusion in one of its premises. The conclusion that compounds are not responsible for predator avoidance is not stated in the argument’s premises.

PrepTest 137 - Section 3 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action