PT157.S3.Q14 > 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

The critic concludes that if the chief competitor of Chris’s restaurant is correct, then Chris’s customers can’t count on getting good seafood gumbo. The competitor’s claim is that Chris’s okra supplier cannot reliably supply fresh okra. The critic supports her conclusion by saying that the best seafood gumbo requires fresh okra.

The premise says that fresh okra is necessary for the best seafood gumbo, but the conclusion says that Chris’s customers can’t count on getting good seafood gumbo.

Just because something is necessary for the best gumbo doesn’t mean that it is necessary for good gumbo.

This is not the flaw because the food critic’s conclusion is conditional. The critic’s conclusion says “if this claim were true,” which means that the critic is not taking the competitor’s words at face value. The critic is speaking about the hypothetical world in which the competitor’s words are true.

The critic doesn’t claim that the gumbo isn’t fresh because one of the ingredients isn’t fresh. Instead, the critic says that the gumbo isn’t good because one of the ingredients isn’t fresh. Because the premises and conclusion talk about different qualities (good vs. fresh), this isn’t a part vs. whole flaw.

This is descriptively inaccurate. The premise outlines a necessary condition for the best gumbo (fresh okra), but the argument doesn’t say that fresh okra is sufficient for good gumbo.

This is the flaw. The argument demonstrates that, if the competitor is correct, Chris’s gumbo lacks fresh okra, which is necessary for the best gumbo. However, the argument does not demonstrate that fresh okra is necessary for good gumbo. It could be true that Chris’s gumbo is good, even without fresh okra.

It’s true that the argument fails to consider this possibility, but it’s irrelevant to the argument. The argument doesn’t need to show that Chris’s gumbo is never made with fresh okra (or that it’s never good gumbo); the conclusion just says that customers can’t “count on” getting good gumbo.

PrepTest 157 - Section 3 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action