PT153.S2.Q8 > 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 analyst concludes Johnson’s campaign doesn’t actually believe his opponent’s quote was more damaging in context. Why not? Because they’ve passed on several more opportunities to quote her statement in context.

The analyst assumes Johnson’s campaign continues to take the quote out of context because it believes the quote would be no more damaging in context. This means assuming there’s no other reason the campaign would continue to give the quote without context—such as convenience, for example.

This makes concrete the analyst’s assumption that the campaign would only continue to use the quote out of context if it were at least as damaging as the quote in context. It rules out the possibility that considerations other than political damage are more important.

This principle doesn’t apply. There’s no indication Johnson’s campaign would find it objectionable if his opponent quoted him in context.

This principle doesn’t affect the argument. It implies the campaign must have some motivation for taking the quote out of context—but doesn’t make the particular motivation suggested by the analyst any more likely.

This doesn’t affect the argument. It implies Johnson’s campaign won’t be criticized either way—it doesn’t make it any more likely the campaign is lying.

This principle doesn’t apply. There’s no indication that quoting Johnson’s opponent in context—as opposed to out of context—would make Johnson vulnerable to counterattack.

PrepTest 153 - Section 2 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action