PT133.S2.Q3 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

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 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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

The author concludes that nuclear power plants are not economically feasible. He supports this by saying that nuclear plants are far more expensive to build than conventional power plants.

The author assumes that nuclear power plants aren’t economically feasible, simply because they’re more expensive to build. He ignores any potential long-term benefits of nuclear power plants that might outweigh their building costs and make them more economically feasible over time.

For example, nuclear plants might last longer or need far less maintenance than conventional plants. He also assumes that the lower ongoing fuel costs of nuclear plants won't offset the higher initial building costs.

Irrelevant— the author says that he isn’t addressing safety concerns. But even if he did address safety concerns, (A) shows that safety regulations increase the costs of both kinds of plants. This doesn’t strengthen the argument that nuclear plants aren’t economically feasible.

This weakens the author’s argument by providing an economic benefit of nuclear plants. If conventional plants spend more time out of service, nuclear plants might be more economically feasible over time.

This provides an additional cost of nuclear power plants. If nuclear plants have a shorter lifespan than conventional plants, they may indeed be less economically feasible, since more would need to be built over time.

Irrelevant— even if nuclear power plants are cheaper now, we still don't know if they are economically feasible. This fails to provide any other costs that would make them unfeasible.

This weakens the argument that nuclear plants are not economically feasible. If the cost of conventional plants will increase dramatically, then nuclear plants might actually be more economically feasible over time.

PrepTest 133 - Section 2 - Question 3

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action