PT143.S3.Q22 > 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 · 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

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 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

Opponents of a certain political party hypothesize that the 10 percent decrease in average family income during that party's tenure was a result of the party's economic mismanagement. This claim is only supported by a correlation between the party's time in government and the period of income decrease.

The opponents present a causal conclusion purely based on observing a correlation. To undermine the argument, we can offer alternative explanations that would show why income decreased without any mismanagement. We can also provide evidence inconsistent with the conclusion, for example that there was a worldwide decline in income during that period. And because this is an except question, we're looking for the one answer that doesn't do any of that.

This doesn't help us to weaken the connection between the income decrease and government economic management—meaning it's the correct answer. We still don't have an alternative explanation for the overall decrease, or any evidence that there was something bigger going on.

This provides a noneconomic cause for the income decrease, which weakens the connection with government economic management. Undermining that connection weakens the argument.

If the income decrease was caused by external factors, that gives us an alternative explanation. In other words, the government’s economic management wasn’t the true cause, so the argument is weakened.

This gives us an alternative cause: it now appears that demographic issues, rather than economic mismanagement, caused the income decrease. Providing an alternative explanation effectively weakens the argument.

This suggests that the ruling party wasn’t responsible for the decrease; they just inherited those policies. In other words, this points to the previous government's actions as the true cause, which weakens the argument.

PrepTest 143 - Section 3 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action