PT156.S2.Q11 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · 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 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

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 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 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

Professor Thomas says Professor York is too flamboyant and confrontational in the classroom. The author implicitly calls this claim into question by citing the fact that Thomas’s claim is self-serving. Thomas is not as good a presenter as York, so Thomas’s criticism of York may simply be a result of envy.

The author attacks Professor Thomas’s motivation rather than the merits of his claim. Whether Thomas is venting his frustration or otherwise making comments due to envy or out of self-interest has nothing to do with the truth of whether Professor York is actually too flamboyant or confrontational in the classroom.

The author doesn’t mistake being too confrontational with being entertaining. There’s no sign that the author thinks one type of behavior is the same as the other.

(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion, which is an implicit questioning of Professor Thomas’s claim about Professor York, does not restate a premise.

The author does not think Thomas endorsed anything that York did or said.

The author attacked Professor Thomas’s motivations rather than addressing the substance of Professor’s Thomas’s argument. We care about whether York is too flamboyant and confrontational. Thomas’s motive is irrelevant.

There’s a difference between rejecting Thomas’s conclusion that York is too confrontational and criticizing Thomas’s argument in favor of that conclusion. The author does the latter.

Question

82% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

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

25% 120

132

75% 149

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Popularity Avg. score

150

153

146

82%

158

151

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

PrepTest 156 - Section 2 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action