PT153.S2.Q24 > Question

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 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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

The author concludes that Landis violated his official duties. This is based on the fact that Landis’s spending of $10,000 was immoral.

The conclusion asserts that Landis violated his official duties. But we have no idea from the premise or from the contextual statements what Landis’s official duties include. Why does spending $10,000 in a way that’s immoral constitute a violation of official duties? We want to learn that Landis’s official duties require the avoidance of immoral spending.

Learning the origin of the money does not establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

We already know as a premise that Landis’s spending was clearly immoral. Our goal is to prove that Landis’s spending was a violation of official duties. (B) doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

What Landis knew concerning the redocoration doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

(D) establishes that avoiding immoral actions (such as immoral spending) is part of Landis’s official duties. So the fact that Landis engaged in immoral spending proves that Landis violated his official duty to avoid immoral actions.

What Landis would have done with the money had he not spent it on redecorating doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

PrepTest 153 - Section 2 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action