PT101.S2.Q15 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 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 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

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

The authors of a recent article were incorrect in claiming that there’s no evidence of increased animal extinction; in other words, the conclusion is that there is evidence of increased animal extinction. This position is supported by data on North American fish that shows increased extinction.

The conclusion is the author’s disagreement with the article authors: “They are wrong.”

This accurately rephrases the argument’s conclusion. (A) is another way of saying that the author disagrees with the claim that there’s no evidence of an accelerating extinction rate.

The author doesn’t make this claim. Whether a future extinction rate can be determined isn’t discussed—the dispute is over whether there’s evidence for the rate having increased.

The argument is not designed to support this claim. While this might be taken as an assumption the author makes, nothing in the argument gives us a reason to believe that the North American fish extinction rate is representative.

This isn’t supported by the argument. The author states this fact to demonstrate the increasing fish extinction rate (which supports the conclusion), but nothing provides support for the statistic of fish extinctions.

The argument isn’t concerned with how many fish species are likely to go extinct soon—fish are just used as an example to demonstrate an increase in extinction rates.

PrepTest 101 - Section 2 - Question 15

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action