PT121.S4.Q5 > 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

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 3 · 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 4 · lr

The author is attempting to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. He hypothesizes that it involved the recently detected fracture in his skill. Why should we believe this explanation? The crack could easily tear veins in the brain, causing blood to leak and dry in the brain, damaging brain function. This process commonly leads to death, but not immediately. Therefore, the partial healing of the fracture supports this explanation.

This is evidence that supports the author’s explanation of Mozart’s death. The stimulus tells us that the skull fracture would lead to death on a delay. Therefore, the partial healing shows there was time between when the fracture occurred and Mozart’s later death. This makes the author’s explanation more plausible by giving us information about when the fracture occurred.

This is not the point of the argument - the argument is trying to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. No claims are made about whether it could have been avoided.

We know this supports the argument by providing information about when the fracture occurred: sometime prior to Mozart’s death. Therefore, it does let us know that it did not occur after his death, which would have been a problem, since then it could not be the cause.

The fact that the fracture was healing does not give us information about Mozart’s faculties. It only gives us information about when the fracture occurred.

The opposite is true - the author tells us that death caused by this fracture is delayed. By placing the fracture sometime before his death, it makes the delayed cause of mortality more likely.

There is no support for the author’s claim that the crack was likely due to an accident - that is just context about where a crack would come from. The healing supports the fracture hypothesis, not whether it was accidental.

PrepTest 121 - Section 4 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action