PT158.S4.Q25 > 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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 · lr

The author concludes that some gov. employees in the Hanson Building are computer programmers. Why?

Because most members of BU Number 17 of the gov. employees’ union are computer programmers.

The conclusion introduces a new concept — working in the Hanson Building. Since the premise doesn’t say anything about working in the Hanson Building, we know the correct answer, at a minimum, must say something about at least some people working in the Hanson Building.

To go further, we want to connect what we know about BU Number 17 to the conclusion. We know that most BU Number 17 members (all of whom are gov. employees) are computer programmers. If we can show that most or all BU Number 17 members work in the Hanson Building, then that guarantees at least some computer programmers work in the Hanson Building. (This is because at least some BU Number 17 members would be computer programmers in the Hanson Building).

(A) tells us that most BU 17 members who aren’t programmers work in the Hanson Building. But we’re trying to place some of the ones who ARE programmers in the Hanson Building.

We don’t know whether the executive comittee of BU 17 are programmers. So (B) doesn’t guarantee that some of the programmers in BU 17 work in the Hanson Building.

This reverses what would have been correct. We want to know that most of BU 17 works in the Hanson Building. But (C) says most who work in the Hanson Building work in BU 17. That doesn’t make the argument valid, because it doesn’t guarantee that some of the programmers in BU 17 are among the people who work in the Hanson building.

The premise tells us most of BU 17 are computer programmers. If, as (D) says, most of BU 17 work in the Hanson Building, then there must be at least 1 member of BU 17 is both a programmer and works in the Hanson Building.

(E) doesn’t guarantee that some of the BU 17 programmers work in the Hanson Building.

PrepTest 158 - Section 4 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action