PT150.S3.Q5 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

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 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

The pundit concludes that the two major political parties in the city have become sharply divided on issues. He supports this by noting that in the last four elections, the parties were separated by less than 1% of the vote.

The pundit concludes that the parties are sharply divided simply because they were separated by less than 1% of the vote in recent elections. He assumes that a close vote indicates a sharp division but doesn’t provide evidence for this. It's possible that the close vote actually shows that the two parties have very similar views and are united.

The pundit actually doesn’t address any causes or effects of the sharp division, so he can’t be confusing the two. Instead, he simply argues that the close vote is evidence of a sharp division.

The pundit assumes that a close vote is evidence of sharp division, but he never claims or assumes that sharp division is a bad thing.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The pundit doesn’t make this mistake. His premise doesn’t support his conclusion very well, but the two are distinct from one another.

The pundit is only addressing the two major political parties “in this city.” How the elections in this city compare to the elections in other cities is irrelevant.

The pundit assumes that a close vote indicates a sharp division on issues, but he gives no evidence to support this assumption. It’s possible that an almost even division in votes actually indicates that the two parties are united.

PrepTest 150 - Section 3 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action