PT151.S3.Q11 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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 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 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The argument cites a positive correlation between car exhaust levels and public health to support its conclusion that car exhaust has no serious negative effect on health.

This is a cookie-cutter example of a correlation-causation flaw. Just because two phenomena are positively correlated does not mean that there is no negative causal relationship between them. It’s possible, and even likely, that public health has improved in spite of car exhaust levels increasing. Public health is probably improving for a variety of other reasons, so car exhaust may still very well have a negative effect on it.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that because a situation has improved, no further effort is needed to continue improving it. The stimulus attempts to negate a negative causal relationship with a positive correlation.

Wrong flaw. To prove that smoking is not harmful, (B) cites exceptional examples of smokers who are not harmed by smoking. Rather than citing an exception to a general rule, the stimulus cites a correlation.

This commits a causation-correlation fallacy. (C) cites a negative correlation (cell phone use has increased while accidents have decreased) and uses it in an attempt to negate a causal relationship (using a cell phone while driving is not dangerous).

Wrong flaw. This cites a relative change (skydiving injuries have decreased) to make an absolute claim (skydiving is not dangerous). Skydiving may still be dangerous even if it’s not as risky as it used to be. The stimulus’s flaw is citing a correlation to negate a causal relationship.

Wrong flaw. This claims that insured people need not take certain precautions against theft because the stolen items will be covered by insurance. It neglects other possible negative effects of being stolen from. The stimulus mistakenly cites a correlation to negate a causal relationship.

Question

90% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

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

25% 129

139

75% 148

Question Stem Tags

Parallel flawed method of reasoning

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

153

148

90%

162

154

155

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

PrepTest 151 - Section 3 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action