PT148.S4.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

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 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The legislation isn’t too specific nor too vague, because it has received both critiques but one statement cannot be both.

We are supposed to grant premises as true, and so we are allowed to believe that one statement cannot be both too specific and too vague. However, the conclusion leaps to the legislation as a whole, even though the support is only about a singular statement. If the legislation is made up of many statements, some of which are too vague and some of which are too specific, then the argument would fail. We need to know that this is not happening.

We are not discussing how uncommon this situation is.

The author is not placing value judgment on legislation that is deemed overly specific or vague. The author is arguing that this legislation is not overly specific or vague.

The negation of (C) does not wreck the argument. If the legislation has been criticized by a third party, we have no idea what they said about it. And, regardless of what they said about it, it wouldn’t affect the argument.

If negated, the legislation was meant to satisfy one or both of these groups. The legislation may have failed in that respect, but it doesn’t address the author’s support, “one and the same statement...” We need to find something necessary in the connection between support and conclusion.

This must be true. If (E) is not true, then there’s an explanation for how a legislation could be both overly vague and overly specific. The author’s claim that a single statement cannot be both of those things would be severed from the conclusion.

PrepTest 148 - Section 4 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action