PT135.S4.Q16 > 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 · 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

SECTION 4 · lr

The economist concludes that his warning that the country’s economy would go into recession if policies weren’t changed was not bumbling. He supports this by saying that his warning led the country’s leaders to change economic policies, which prevented the recession.

The economist’s prediction relied on a condition. He predicted that the economy would go into recession if policies weren’t changed. But the economist shows that this condition wasn’t met— because of his warning, economic policies were changed. As a result, he concludes that his warning wasn’t bumbling and ineffective and suggests that it actually led to the prevention of the recession.

The economist’s prediction was conditioned on economic policies staying the same. By showing that policies were changed (i.e. that “the state of affairs on which [his] prediction was conditioned did not obtain”), he refutes the critic’s claim that his prediction was bumbling.

The economist doesn’t suggest that his prediction might still be correct, nor does he distinguish between types of predictions. He’s not concerned with whether his prediction came to pass; instead, he focuses on disproving the claim that his warning was bumbling or pointless.

The economist refutes the critic’s claim that his warning was bumbling, but he doesn’t point out any inconsistencies within the critic’s argument.

The critic asserts a very specific claim about the economist’s prediction, not a general one. And the economist doesn't respond by offering a counterexample, but shows that the condition on which his prediction depended was not met.

The economist implicitly accepts both of the critic’s factual claims (that he predicted a recession if policies weren’t changed and that economic growth was stronger this year). Instead of disputing these claims, he points out that the condition for his prediction wasn’t met.

PrepTest 135 - Section 4 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action