PT157.S2.Q12 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 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 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

If an artwork is great, then it provokes passionate response when viewed. Reilly’s artwork provokes passionate responses when viewed, therefore his work is great

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. The author treats having strong responses as sufficient for greatness, but strong responses are necessary, not sufficient. So confirming that there are strong responses doesn’t allow us to infer anything about greatness (other than that this particular necessary condition hasn’t been failed).

Also, there is a potential issue with conflating the terms “passionate” and “intensely emotional.” These might be considered to be interchangeable but, as always, stay wary.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The author doesn’t make this mistake; the conditional statement that is premise (”Great works of art evoke...”) doesn’t assume the conclusion (Reilly’s artwork is great) to be true.

This matches our flaw identification/prediction. The author treats having strong responses, which is necessary for greatness, as also being sufficient for greatness. This is invalid logic.

There is no atypical instance. Applying the conditional rule of artwork greatness to Reilly’s work is appropriate, but the author did it incorrectly by confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.

We have no reason to believe that anything was derived from an insufficient number of instances. When choosing an answer choice for a Flaw question, we need evidence that the reasoning involves a particular assumption/lack of credibility/etc. There’s no evidence that there was an insufficient number of instances.

Both the support and conclusion contain statements involving value judgment (greatness). (E) is descriptively inaccurate.

PrepTest 157 - Section 2 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action