PT145.S4.Q9 > Analytics

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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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 4 · lr

The author concludes that Joshi’s vote is being influenced by campaign contributions. This is based on the fact that Joshi’s re-election campaign has received more money from property developers than any other city councilor’s campaign. In addition, Joshi’s voting record favors property developers’ interest more than does the voting record of any other city councilor.

The author assumes that Joshi’s favorable voting record for the property developers is a result of campaign contributions from the developers. But we don’t know which came first. It’s possible the developers contribute to Joshi because of Joshi’s votes. This opens the possibility that Joshi’s votes aren’t influenced by the contributions; he might be voting favorably to the developers for other reasons.

The author doesn’t argue that Joshi is being influenced by campaign contributions because his votes occurred after the contributions. (In fact, we don’t know whether the votes occurred after the contributions.)

The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there is no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.

The conclusion is not a moral judgment. A claim that someone is influenced by campaign contributions is simply a claim about cause and effect. It doesn’t involve a moral judgment.

The author assumes that the contributions are a cause of Joshi’s votes that are favorable to property developers, but these contributions could be a result of Joshi’s votes. Maybe Joshi voted favorably first, and the contributions followed.

(E) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion — that contributions influence Joshi’s vote — isn’t restated in the premises. None of the premises assert that Joshi’s vote is affected by contributions.

Question

87% of people who answer get this correct

This is a moderately difficult question.

CURVE

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

25% 136

145

75% 155

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

159

155

156

87%

165

151

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

PrepTest 145 - Section 4 - Question 9

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action