PT143.S1.Q18 > 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 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the recent accusations of graft in his precinct are unfounded. This is based on the fact that no officer in the precinct has ever taken a gift of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In addition, if someone accepts gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100, that constitutes graft.

The author overlooks the possibility that there are other things that also count as graft besides gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In other words, the author assumes that the only things that are considered graft are gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100.

The argument isn’t based on a limited sample of officers. The premise asserts that “no officer in my precinct” has ever accept gifts of cash/objects valued at more than $100. The conclusion is about the author’s precinct. The conclusion isn’t about a broader group of officers.

The author overlooks that there may be other actions that constitute graft. If other things can count as graft, then even if the officers did not accept the gifts discussed, that doesn’t absolve them of potentially having committed graft through other actions.

The author’s premise doesn’t involve an appeal to the character of the officers. The premise establishes that the officers have not committed one action that would count is graft. This doesn’t establish anything about the officers’ character.

The conclusion concerns only accusations of graft. The author does not assert anything about accusations of corruption.

The author’s premise is that no officer in the precinct has taken gifts of cash/objects at more than $100 dollars. This doesn’t contradict the conclusion, which is that accusations of graft are unfounded.

PrepTest 143 - Section 1 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action