PT152.S1.Q15 > 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 · lr

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

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that complete self-forgiveness is unattainable. He supports this by saying that completely understanding someone leads to completely forgiving them, but complete self-understanding is unattainable.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency and necessity. The author concludes that complete self-forgiveness is unattainable because complete self-understanding is unattainable. In doing so, he treats “understanding” as necessary for “forgiveness.” But according to his premises, “understanding” is merely sufficient. So negating “understanding” tells us nothing about “forgiveness.”

In other words, the author treats complete understanding as the only way to bring about forgiveness. But maybe it’s possible to forgive yourself completely, even though you can’t understand yourself completely.

The author treats the failure to satisfy “understanding,” which is sufficient to bring about “forgiveness,” as if satisfying “understanding” is the only way to bring about “forgiveness.” But what if self-forgiveness is attainable, even though self-understanding is not?

Actually, the author confuses something that is sufficient for an action to occur with something that is necessary for that action to occur. He doesn’t confuse a conditional claim with a causal claim like (B) suggests.

The author doesn't assume that it’s true that complete understanding leads to complete forgiveness merely because it has been said to be true. He just says that if this is true, then complete self-forgiveness is unattainable.

The argument is about whether complete self-forgiveness and understanding are possible, not whether they are desirable. Also the author seems to acknowledge that complete self-understanding is desirable, even though it’s unattainable.

The author doesn't make any claims about whether one should or should not attempt to attain self-forgiveness and understanding. Also, he doesn’t argue that self-forgiveness and understanding are simply difficult; he argues that they’re unattainable.

PrepTest 152 - Section 1 - Question 15

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action