PT118.S4.Q19

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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3
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 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

PrepTest 118 - Section 4 - Question 19

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

According to some astronomers, Support Earth is struck by a meteorite large enough to cause an ice age on an average of once every 100 million years. ███ ████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ████████

Summarize Argument

The author advocates for funding to determine if Earth is protected from meteorites. This is because some astronomers claim that, in the past, large meteorites have struck Earth an average of once every 100 million years, and it’s been nearly 100 million years since the last strike. The author takes this as evidence that another strike is imminent.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument mistakenly assumes that because the average time between strikes has been 100 million years, that the next one must arrive about 100 million years after the previous strike. But averages don’t work like a fixed schedule—consider that the average between 50 million and 150 million is 100 million. The next strike could happen much later, or not at all. Additionally, there’s no reason to assume that this average will always hold. There may be far fewer or far more large meteorites now than in the distant past.

Analysis by KevinLin

Show answer

19.

The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████

makes a bold ████████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███████████ ████ █ ████ ███████████ ███ █ ██████████ █████

The argument never establishes a high probability of a disastrous event. The author’s prescription would be reasonable if that risk had been established, but the past average doesn’t support a prediction of the next strike’s timing.

presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ██████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████

The argument does the opposite of this. It supports its prediction of the next strike’s timing by citing the fact that a strike has not occurred in nearly 100 million years.

moves from evidence █████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █ ████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████ █████

This describes how the argument misunderstands what the past average indicates. Just because there’s been a historic average of 100 million years between strikes does not mean that the next strike will occur about 100 million years after the previous one.

fails to specify ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ █ █████████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ███

The possible effects of a future strike are irrelevant since the argument fails to establish that there will even be a strike.

presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ █████ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ███████

The argument does not claim that large strikes can be deterred. It claims that the high probability of a large strike in the near future warrants funding to determine whether or not Earth is protected. The problem is that the high probability of a large strike isn’t established.

Difficulty

Question

75% 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% 138

151

75% 163

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Math

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

10%

161

160

75%

166

159

157

Question history

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