Summarize Argument
The geologist concludes scientists must investigate the mountain for geological faults before a nuclear waste storage facility is built there. Why? Because a fault could allow waste to leak out or water to seep in while the nuclear waste is still dangerous, a disastrous circumstance.
Notable Assumptions
The geologist assumes waiting to build the facility until the study is completed poses no greater risk than building the facility before the study. She assumes scientists will be able to tell, upon investigation, whether the mountain has a dangerous fault.
A
In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests a disaster caused by leakage or seepage could have lesser consequences in the future—because no humans would be left to suffer those consequences.
B
The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
This supports the geologist’s assumption that a scientific study would be able to detect a geological fault in the mountain. It rules out the possibility that such a study would be inconclusive, and thus unhelpful.
C
The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication the facility’s original purpose would affect the potential consequences of a nuclear accident or increase the ability of scientists to detect a geological fault.
D
The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
If anything, this weakens the argument. If cost is an issue, it’s a reason not to conduct the study, and if cost is no issue, it’s irrelevant.
E
Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests there’s some chance nuclear waste will only be stored in this facility temporarily, which would lessen the chances of a nuclear disaster caused by a geological fault.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
An Ecologist hypothesizes that the rodent populations in region T will increase over the coming decades. This is because:
Rodent populations increase during long periods of sustained rain
El Nono, which causes heavy rainfall in region T, is expected to become much more frequent due to global warming
Rodent populations increase during long periods of sustained rain
El Nono, which causes heavy rainfall in region T, is expected to become much more frequent due to global warming
Notable Assumptions
The Ecologist assumes that El Nino will consistently bring enough heavy rainfall to cause an increase in the rodent population.
The Ecologist also assumes that there are no unintended consequences from sustained levels of heavy rainfall that would offset the increases to the rodent population.
The Ecologist also assumes that there are no unintended consequences from sustained levels of heavy rainfall that would offset the increases to the rodent population.
A
In region T, there is typically much less rainfall in summer than there is in winter.
*When* it typically rains in region T has no impact on the reasoning of this argument. The reasoning is focused on the increased presence of El Nino causing increased rain, and thus increased rodent populations.
B
Rodent populations in region T often diminish during long periods in which there are no heavy rains.
This does not weaken the argument because the Ecologist assumes there *will* be heavy rains.
C
In many regions that, on average, experience substantially more winter rainfall than region T does, average rodent populations are considerably lower than they are in region T.
While this looks like it weakens the relationship between heavy rains and a high rodent population, the Ecologist is focused on region T. Data from other regions has too many conflicting variables.
D
In region T, winters marked by relatively high rainfall have usually not been marked by long periods of sustained rain.
This weakens the argument because it challenges the assumption that the heavy rainfall caused by El Nino will result in the *sustained* rainfall that is correlated with rodent population growth.
E
The global warming caused by air pollution produces a number of effects, other than the increase in the frequency of El Niño, that could affect rodent populations.
This answer choice doesn’t do anything because it does not specify *how* the global warning will impact rodent populations. Will it increase/decrease? It does not say.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!