PT103.S2.Q12 > Analytics

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 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 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 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that eating less fat will help reduce cancer risk. He supports this by pointing to a correlation between cancer rates and fat intake: countries with higher cancer rates also have higher average fat intake.

Based on a mere correlation, the author hypothesizes that higher fat intake is what’s causing the higher cancer rates. This means he assumes that the relationship isn’t the reverse (i.e., the higher cancer rates aren’t somehow causing higher fat intake), and also that there isn’t some hidden, alternative cause that’s actually responsible for the difference in cancer rates between different countries.

In order for this to weaken the argument, traditional diets would need to provide an alternative explanation for the difference in cancer rates between different countries. However, the possible effect of any given traditional diet on cancer rates is entirely unclear.

In order for this to weaken the argument, the wealth of a country would need to provide an alternative explanation for the increased cancer rates in high-fat counties. However, the connection between increased national wealth and increased cancer likelihood is entirely unclear.

The stimulus tells us that cancer nevertheless occurs more commonly in countries with higher average fat intake. (C) fails to address any reason for that difference in cancer rates, and so fails to weaken the conclusion that the difference is due to fat intake.

This provides an alternative cause for the difference in cancer rates between different countries: it’s not fat intake that’s responsible, but rather exposure to pollution.

The fact remains that, in general, high average fat intake correlates with high cancer rates. The possibility that someone’s fat intake might deviate from the average has no effect on the argument.

Question

64% of people who answer get this correct

This is a very difficult question.

CURVE

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

25% 152

161

75% 171

Question Stem Tags

Weaken

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

165

156

27%

162

64%

169

165

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

PrepTest 103 - Section 2 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action