PT111.S3.Q19 > 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 columnist concludes that the government shouldn’t tax certain hunting and recreational items just because they have associated risks.

This is a MBT Except question. For this question, all the wrong answers will be consistent with the conclusion that the government shouldn’t tax certain recreational items just because they’re dangerous. The right answer will conflict with this conclusion by offering information that suggests the government should tax certain recreational items just because they’re dangerous.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous. Instead, it proposes that certain items should be taxed to fund education.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous. Instead, it argues that people with healthy lifestyles should not be taxed.

This conflicts with the conclusion by suggesting the complete opposite of what the columnist argues. (C) says the government should create financial disincentives for dangerous activities, while the columnist says the government should not.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It supports the conclusion by offering a supporting principle: the government should not create financial disincentives for dangerous activities.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous.

PrepTest 111 - Section 3 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action