PT137.S3.Q8 > 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

Clark concludes that Michaela must be a critically acclaimed playwright because her play is being featured at a local theater that values critical acclaim and often performs plays by such people.

Clark never establishes that every play performed by the theater is written by a critically acclaimed playwright. He would need to establish this in order to conclude that Michaela, by virtue of her work being performed there, is definitely critically acclaimed. Evidence that critical acclaim is one of the main factors considered by the theater is not enough to establish it is a necessary condition for being performed at the theater, since the theater may also perform many plays by writers without critical acclaim.

The premises never establish that performance at the theater is necessary in order for a playwright to be critically acclaimed. The author assumes performance at the theater is sufficient for a playwright to be critically acclaimed. But the author never confuses the idea that performance at the theater is necessary for critical acclaim, because this idea isn't present in the argument.

The argument never mentions any cause-and-effect relationship. The flaw is assuming that someone’s work being performed by the theater is sufficient to prove that they’re critically acclaimed.

This describes how Clark assumes that critical acclaim is a necessary condition for having one’s play performed at the theater. Since it’s not actually established as necessary, there could be many plays performed that aren’t critically acclaimed.

The only source Clark appeals to is the production director, and there’s no reason to believe that this source is unreliable.

Clark doesn’t claim that critical acclaim results from one’s play being chosen by the theater, so there’s no need to provide evidence for it.

PrepTest 137 - Section 3 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action