PT156.S4.Q14 > Question

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

The science writer concludes that accepting a scientific argument for social reasons is not detrimental to its science because it is a common practice.

The writer concludes the non-harm of a practice based on its popularity. In doing this, she assumes that commonness has a relationship with harm or lack of harm. For example, if genocide were to suddenly catch on as common practice in every country, that would not make it less harmful.

The argument doesn’t assume this. The writer is assuming that, because it’s frequently done, social reasons are legitimate reasons for accepting an argument. But she is not saying that these are the only legitimate reasons.

The science writer has jumped from “Look, lots of people do it!” to “So it can’t be that bad!” This is the flaw that (B) describes.

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so failing to consider it can’t be a flaw. Whether these scientists consider other evidence or not wouldn’t change whether accepting an argument for social reasons, to any degree, is harmful.

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so failing to consider it can’t be a flaw. Self-awareness doesn’t change whether social reasons are harmful or not.

The argument doesn’t assume this—the conclusion only assesses damage to the sciences. If (E) had said “...not detrimental to any other human endeavor will not be detrimental to the sciences,” it would be closer. But even then, we don’t know that this behavior isn’t harmful to other endeavors.

PrepTest 156 - Section 4 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action