PT153.S2.Q7 > 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

Sabine argues that the barber’s claim is not true because the barber makes money by convincing people to buy the product.

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of the argument rather than the argument itself.

Here, Sabine dismisses the barber’s claim simply because the barber benefits from selling the product. Sabine never actually engages with the barber’s evidence, nor does she give any reason to believe that the product does not help prevent baldness.

Sabine doesn't address the fact that the barber is not a scientist. Instead, she discounts the barber’s claim merely because the barber benefits from selling the product.

Sabine never claims or assumes that the product will be harmful. She just says that it’s not true that the product helps prevent baldness.

The barber explains that the product prevents baldness by blocking a certain chemical compound. Sabine rejects the claim that it prevents baldness, but she doesn’t challenge the barber’s explanation. She also doesn’t need to propose an alternative explanation.

Sabine draws a conclusion about the barber’s claim based on an assumption about the barber’s motives. Her conclusion isn’t about the barber’s motives. Also, she doesn’t need to provide evidence that the barber’s claim was made; Kevin just said that it was made.

Sabine rejects the barber’s claim that the product helps prevent baldness merely because the barber stands to benefit from that claim. Sabine doesn't give any real evidence against the barber’s claim.

PrepTest 153 - Section 2 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action