PT102.S4.Q1 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

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 · lr

The taxpayer argues that Metro City’s bridge-maintenance budget has been irresponsible. To support this, the taxpayer points out that if Metro City had spent more on regular bridge upkeep, they would have, in total, spent much less on their bridges.

The conclusion is that the city has been irresponsible by not spending enough to maintain its bridges.

This a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The taxpayer argues that the city was fiscally irresponsible by underfunding bridge maintenance, leading to high emergency repair costs. He contends that the city should have spent “substantially more”—$15 million—to reduce such costs.

The taxpayer argues that Metro should’ve spent more on maintenance, not reconstruction. Moreover, he doesn’t claim that more spending on reconstruction (or maintenance) would ensure a well-run program.

This is sufficient and necessary confusion. The argument tells us “If you have a well-run bridge program, then you spend $15 million per year on bridge maintenance.” (B) is switching modified versions of these conditions.

The taxpayer argues the opposite of this claim. The taxpayer contends that the city is spending less than it needs to maintain its bridges. The city only pays $1 million for bridge maintenance, but the taxpayer argues that a “well-run” budget would spend $15 million yearly.

The taxpayer does not discuss why the city is economizing. The taxpayer argues that the city’s economizing is ineffective and will ultimately cost more, but the taxpayer does not explain why the city chose to spend so little on bridge maintenance.

The taxpayer discusses reconstruction and maintenance of bridges—not building them.

Also, the taxpayer contends that the city’s bridges are more expensive to reconstruct than maintain.

PrepTest 102 - Section 4 - Question 1

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action