PT147.S1.Q2 > 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 Question 26

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 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

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 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that lack of trust in one’s neighbors leads to committing crimes. This is based on a study which showed a correlation between neighborhoods in which people routinely lock their doors (taken to be evidence of lack of trust) and higher burglary rates.

The author overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. Perhaps it’s not that lack of trust leads to a higher burglary rate, but rather, a higher burglary rate leads to lack of trust of neighbors. Or perhaps there’s some third factor that causes both a lack of trust and a higher burglary rate.

The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions. There’s nothing presented as sufficient to produce lack of trust or sufficient to produce crimes.

The conclusion is not a “moral” conclusion. It doesn’t involve a value judgment or opinion about what’s good or bad. The conclusion is merely a causal claim.

The argument doesn’t contradict itself. The evidence shows a correlation, and the author proposes a causal interpretation of it.

(D) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion asserts cause; the study describes a correlation. The conclusion is therefore not restated in the premise.

People locking their doors could be an effect of higher burglary rates. But the author assumes that it’s causing higher burglary rates. (E) points out the author overlooks an alternate explanation for the correlation.

PrepTest 147 - Section 1 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action