PT138.S2.Q5

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 Question 26

SECTION 3 · 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 4 · 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

PrepTest 138 - Section 2 - Question 5

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Principle: Support A law whose purpose is to protect wild animal populations should not be enforced against those whose actions do not threaten wild animal populations.

████████████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ████████████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███████████

The Principle and Its Application

The principle tells us: if a law's purpose is to protect wild animal populations, then it should not be enforced against people whose actions don't threaten wild animal populations. In other words, non-enforcement applies when two things are true: (1) the law exists to protect wild animal populations, and (2) the person's actions don't threaten wild animal populations.

The application tells us there's a law against capturing wild snakes, and this law was enacted to protect wild snake populations. So condition (1) is satisfied. The application then concludes that snake charmers who violate this law should not be prosecuted.

The Missing Fact to Trigger the Principle

What's missing? We have a law designed to protect wild animal populations, and we have a conclusion that it shouldn't be enforced against snake charmers. But, we still don't know whether condition (2) is true: whether snake charmers' actions don't threaten wild snake populations. That's the gap. We're looking for an answer that establishes snake charmers don't threaten wild snake populations.

Analysis by Kevin_Lin

Show answer

Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████

Since there are ██████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████████

This helps establish that snake charmers' actions don't threaten wild snake populations, since they are few in number and each one captures relatively few snakes per year. That is evidence showing condition (2) from the principle is met. With both conditions now met, the principle tells us the law should not be enforced against snake charmers, and the conclusion is supported.

Many attempts to █████████ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████

Whether prosecutors have struggled to convict snake charmers in the past has nothing to do with whether snake charmers should be prosecuted. The principle concerns when enforcement is justified, not whether enforcement is practically feasible.

Very few, if ████ █████ ████████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██ █ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███████

Whether snake charmers know about the law is irrelevant to the principle. The principle asks whether their actions threaten wild animal populations, not whether they're aware of the law they're violating.

Snake populations are ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██████

This compares how threatened snakes are relative to other species, but it doesn't tell us that snake charmers' actions aren't a threat to snake populations. Snakes could be less threatened overall while snake charmers still pose a meaningful threat to them. We need to know specifically about the impact of snake charmers, not the overall threat level facing snakes compared to other animals.

Snake charmers capture ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █ ██████ ██████████

The snake charmers' financial motivations don't tell us anything about whether their actions threaten wild snake populations. Even if they'd have no other way to earn a living, that doesn't reduce the impact their capturing has on snake populations.

Difficulty

Question

95% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

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

25% 126

136

75% 145

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

PSA - find or complete the application

Stems that tell us there will be a general rule or principle in the stimulus, and ask us which answer choice illustrates or conforms to that rule.

Stimulus Tags

Link assumption

Arguments that feature an unjustified shift from one concept to another, which don't fit neatly into other common flaw categories (e.g. moving from premises about "houses" to a conclusion about "dwellings").

Rule-application

Stimuli that involve the application of a general rule to specific scenarios.

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

95%

164

153

149

157

Question history

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