PT104.S1.Q4 > Question

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 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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 4 · lr

The author challenges Yasukawa’s conclusion that a blackbird’s size affects its odds of survival by pointing out that smaller blackbirds tend to be younger, implying that the real explanatory factor may be age rather than size.

The question stem asks us to find something that, if true, would show that the author made a false assumption about Yasukawa’s conclusion, thereby weakening the argument.

The author only establishes that smaller blackbirds are generally younger than larger ones, but this may not be true of the birds studied by Yasukawa—perhaps he compared a smaller species of blackbirds with a larger one. It’s also possible that Yasukawa controlled for age by comparing birds of the same age. Either possibility would mean that the author misunderstands how the study was conducted.

If this were true, then it would indicate that it was the blackbirds’ species that accounted for their size differences, not their ages. This would make the author's objection, which depends on the idea that smaller birds are younger, irrelevant.

Irrelevant. Yasukawa studying blackbirds in their natural habitat wouldn’t provide any relevant information about how size and age were considered in the study, which is what the author’s objection hinges on.

Irrelevant. The author only disputes that Yasukawa is wrong in claiming that size is a determinant factor of a blackbird’s survival odds—other kinds of birds don’t matter.

Irrelevant. It’s established that a larger percentage of smaller birds survived than larger ones—it doesn’t matter if they lost fights. The question is what accounts for the difference in their respective survival rates.

Irrelevant. The smaller birds had higher survival rates regardless of social hierarchies. The question is what accounts for the differences in survival rates.

PrepTest 104 - Section 1 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action