PT143.S1.Q16

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

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 4 · 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

PrepTest 143 - Section 1 - Question 16

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

It is possible to grow agricultural crops that can thrive when irrigated with seawater. ████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ █████ █████████ ████████████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████

Argument Summary

The first sentence is context: it's possible to grow crops that thrive when irrigated with seawater. The author doesn't argue for this; she just states it as a fact.

The author then concludes that seawater farming done near oceans would actually be cheaper than most other irrigated agriculture. The word "since" signals the start of her reasoning. Why would it be cheaper? Because the water wouldn't have to be pumped far. And pumping is where the real money goes in irrigated agriculture: it's the greatest expense, and costs go up the farther you pump. So if you're farming right next to the ocean, you barely have to pump at all, which means you're cutting the biggest cost in the whole operation.

The question asks about the role of the claim that pumping is the greatest expense. This is one of the premises. It helps explain why not having to pump water far would make seawater farming cheaper: if pumping were only a minor cost, then reducing pumping distance wouldn't do much to lower overall costs. But because pumping is the biggest expense, cutting it makes a real difference.

Anticipation

We should be looking for an answer that describes the referenced claim as a premise or as evidence for the conclusion. It's not the conclusion itself, since nothing in the argument is offered as a reason to believe that pumping is the greatest expense. The author states it as a fact and uses it to support her point about cost.

Analysis by Kevin_Lin

Show answer

16.

Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ██████

It is a █████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████

The author never challenges this claim. She treats it as true and uses it to support her conclusion. If the author were showing it to be false, we'd expect her to provide reasons why pumping isn't the greatest expense. Instead, the argument relies on the claim being true.

It is a ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████

The claim actually supports the conclusion rather than undermining it. The fact that pumping is the greatest expense is part of why seawater farming near oceans would be cheaper. If this claim were proven false, say, if pumping were only a trivial cost, that would hurt the argument. But (B) says the claim itself would undermine the conclusion, which gets the relationship backwards.

It is evidence ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████████

This accurately describes the role of the claim. The author uses the fact that pumping is the greatest expense as a reason to believe that seawater farming near oceans would be cheaper. It works together with the other premises (seawater wouldn't need to be pumped far, and pumping costs increase with distance) to support the conclusion.

It is the ██████████ ███████████

The conclusion is that seawater farming near oceans would be cheaper than most other irrigated agriculture. The claim about pumping being the greatest expense is one of the reasons offered in support of that conclusion. To test this, ask: does the argument give us any reason to believe that pumping is the greatest expense? No. The author just states it as a fact. But does the argument use it as a reason to believe something else? Yes, it supports the claim that seawater farming would be cheaper.

It is a █████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████████

This would mean the claim is an intermediate conclusion: something that receives support from other parts of the argument and also provides support to the main conclusion. But no other sentence in the argument is offered as a reason to believe that pumping is the greatest expense. The author presents it as a standalone fact without arguing for it. So the first half of (E), "a claim for which the argument provides evidence," is inaccurate.

Difficulty

Question

91% of people who answer get this correct

This is a moderately difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 136

144

75% 152

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Argument part

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

139

149

91%

164

151

156

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!