PT142.S1.Q5 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The critic concludes that Fillmore’s argument should be rejected because Fillmore benefits from convincing parents that watching TV is not harmful to children.

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Here, the critic argues that Fillmore’s argument should be rejected simply because the argument benefits Fillmore. She attacks Fillmore instead of giving any reason to believe that Fillmore’s conclusion is false.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The critic doesn't make this mistake. Her argument doesn’t rely on conditional logic; instead, it relies on an attack against Fillmore.

The critic concludes that Fillmore’s argument is false merely on the grounds that the argument would benefit Fillmore. The critic never claims that there’s no evidence to contradict her own conclusion.

The critic rejects Fillmore’s argument solely on the grounds that it serves the interests of Fillmore. She never provides any evidence to support her conclusion that Fillmore’s argument should be rejected. In other words, she attacks Fillmore himself, rather than his argument.

The critic’s argument isn’t based on an appeal to anyone’s views or authority at all. Instead, it’s based on an attack against Fillmore.

The critic bases her conclusion on a single claim: that Fillmore benefits from convincing parents that watching TV is not harmful to children. This claim may not support her conclusion well, but it doesn’t contradict any other claim.

PrepTest 142 - Section 1 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action