PT149.S1.Q16 > Analytics

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

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 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

Galindo argues that Simpson’s lack of experience in the oil industry doesn’t disqualify him as a chief executive candidate. He offers two premises:

(1) Having a background in the oil industry doesn’t guarantee success.

(2) The last chief executive was unsuccessful despite their background in the oil industry.

This is the flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. Fremont argues that having oil industry experience is a necessary condition for being a successful chief executive. Instead of arguing against this claim, Galindo argues that having an oil industry background isn’t a sufficient condition for a chief executive to be successful. Fremont never claimed that an oil background was sufficient, though—he just said it was necessary. Galindo doesn’t address Fremont’s actual argument, so his disagreement with Fremont is unsupported.

Galindo does not presume that Fremont’s objection is based on personal bias, so no such justification would be necessary.

It isn’t necessary for Galindo to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant experience, because both Fremont and Galindo limit their arguments to discussions of relevant experience (a background in the oil industry).

This is the cookie-cutter flaw in Galindo’s argument. Fremont argues that an oil industry background is necessary for success; Galindo counters that such a background is not sufficient to ensure success. Galindo mistakes Fremont’s necessary condition for a sufficient condition.

Galindo does not conclude that an oil industry background is always irrelevant to success. He states that such a background does not necessarily guarantee success, but he doesn’t suggest that oil industry experience is always irrelevant to success.

Galindo’s example successfully proves that an oil industry background doesn’t guarantee success, so the efficacy of his example or the fact that he only offers one isn’t a flaw. Rather, the flaw is that the claim his example proves does not actually respond to Fremont’s argument.

Question

58% of people who answer get this correct

This is a difficult question.

CURVE

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

25% 149

159

75% 169

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

126

151

58%

165

15%

159

26%

158

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

PrepTest 149 - Section 1 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action