PT101.S2.Q10 > 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 current recession appears to be ending. To support this, the economist gives a chain of reasoning. First, a fact: consumers are purchasing more durable goods. Second, an interpretation of this fact (in this case, this is also a sub-conclusion): consumers expect economic growth soon. These two premises support the main conclusion that the recession seems to be ending.

The claim that consumers are buying more durable goods than before is a factual premise. More specifically, it is a premise that supports a sub-conclusion (consumers expect economic growth), which then supports the main conclusion (the recession is ending).

The argument isn’t really trying to explain a phenomenon. Instead, the economist is making a statement about the state of the recession based on a phenomenon (buying more durable goods).

The conclusion that the recession seems to be ending is supported by the claim about consumer purchases, but that doesn’t mean one is required for the other—the economist could be mistaken about the consumers while the conclusion is still true.

Like (D), this gets things backwards: the claim that the recession seems to be ending is the main conclusion, not a premise. Also, the claim about consumer purchases is a fact, not an inference; the inference in the argument is “indicating that they expect economic growth in the near future.”

Like (C), this gets things backwards: the claim about consumer expectation is the inference. It’s a sub-conclusion supported by the claim about consumer purchases. Also, the claim about consumer purchases is a factual premise, not an inference.

This accurately describes the role of the claim about consumer purchases. It’s the only factual premise in the argument—the only piece of hard evidence. The rest of the argument is just a series of inferences drawn from this evidence.

PrepTest 101 - Section 2 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action