PT116.S2.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 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

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

PASSAGE 3

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

After switching away from farming, the area’s economy improved substantially. Therefore, residents of the area shouldn’t be upset about the loss of farming.

The argument moves from a claim that moving away from farming had a specific benefit (economic growth) to a more general claim that people shouldn’t be upset about the loss of farming. It does not state, however, that all people should care about is economic growth - it assumes that if there is economic growth, that means people shouldn’t be upset. We’re looking for something that explains that assumption, and states that people should care the most about economic growth.

Wrong trigger. The argument is about how other businesses replaced farming, and how efficient farming can be isn’t relevant.

The argument isn’t concerned with national security - it doesn’t need to prove that this shift was good for national security.

This explains the link between economic growth and the claim that residents shouldn’t be upset. If this were negated, and residents cared more about their rural way of life, then they could still be upset about the loss of farming even if it was good for the economy.

This only builds on the claim the argument makes that moving away from farming led to economic growth, and does not give any further reason to believe residents should therefore not be upset about the loss of farming.

Leads to the wrong conclusion. If this were true, then the residents might have reason to be upset about the loss of farming even though there was economic growth.

PrepTest 116 - Section 2 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action