PT125.S2.Q7 > 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

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 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 Question 26

SECTION 3 · 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 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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 4 · lr

According to the environmentalist, excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide threatens everyone’s welfare, and can only be stopped by reducing fossil fuel use. However, any country that participated in this reduction would also reduce its GNP. Also, no country would willingly take on the entire cost of an action that helps everyone. Thus, the threat of excess atmospheric carbon can only be avoided if... what?

In Lawgic:

P1: stop carbon excess → reduce fossil fuels

P2: reduce fossil fuels → reduce GNP

P3: country → /willing to bear entire cost

C: stop carbon excess → ?

From the stimulus, we can conclude that avoiding the threat of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide can only be avoided if multiple countries work together to share the burden of reducing fossil fuel use.

This is anti-supported. The whole problem for the environmentalist is that each individual country is too concerned with economics, and not concerned enough with pollution. Shifting the balance further towards economics definitely wouldn’t avoid the carbon crisis.

This is not supported. The environmentalist doesn’t indicate the role of multinational corporations at all, and talks about strict government regulation rather than voluntary emission standards.

This is strongly supported. The environmentalist’s argument is that countries aren’t willing to work alone to impose industrial emission standards. International agreements would share the economic burden, thus allowing a solution through participation.

This is not supported. The environmentalist doesn’t suggest anything about distrust among nations. It may be tempting to assume that distrust is the obstacle, but we just don’t have enough information about nations’ intentions and their leaders’ beliefs.

This is not supported. The environmentalist is leading to the conclusion that some kind of international participation is necessary, but world government is an extreme way to do so, and it’s not an option suggested in the stimulus. This just goes too far.

PrepTest 125 - Section 2 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action