PT111.S1.Q8 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that rerouting the sewage is pointless. Why? Because most lobsters are too short-lived to suffer from the gill diseases that rerouting the sewage would prevent.

The author assumes there is no other worthwhile reason for the sewage to be rerouted. In particular, he assumes that if lobsters are not harmed by sewage-caused gill diseases, then there’s no use in trying to prevent them.

This strengthens the argument. If non-sewage contaminants are equally dangerous, then rerouting the sewage will not protect the lobsters much, if at all.

This does not say lobsters live only in the open ocean. It’s possible the lobsters caught for human consumption live mainly in industrial harbors.

This strengthens the argument by eliminating one possible reason for the sewage to be rerouted.

This is not relevant. There’s no indication the detection of gill diseases from the outside makes lobsters more or less healthy or dangerous.

This is a reason to reroute the sewage. Though lobsters themselves may not suffer from sewage-contaminated water, humans eating them will.

PrepTest 111 - Section 1 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action