PT106.S1.Q5 > 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

The author hypothesizes that an increase in the North Atlantic harp seal population is unlikely to be responsible for a drop in the cod population over the same time period. The author supports this hypothesis by stating that cod is not a significant part of the seals’ diet. After all, if the seals aren’t eating the cod, how could they be responsible for the observed phenomenon of the cod’s decline?

The author assumes that the only possible way that the seal increase could causally contribute to the cod decrease is that the seals directly eat the cod. This overlooks the possibility that the two phenomena have an indirect causal relationship: for example, the seals might eat a different fish that the cod also rely on, or otherwise impact the ecosystem in a way that harms the cod.

This does not weaken the argument. If the seals are actually helping to protect the cod by deterring fishers, that does nothing to undermine the author’s hypothesis that the seals aren’t harming the cod population.

This does not weaken the argument. In fact, by providing an alternative hypothesis explaining why the cod population might decline that’s unrelated to the seal population increase, this claim would actually strengthen.

This does not weaken the argument. If anything, this claim would strengthen: it implies that the seals and the cod live in different parts of the North Atlantic, which makes it less likely that the seals would have an impact on the cod population.

This weakens the argument, because it provides an indirect causal mechanism linking the increase in seals and the decline in cod. This rebuts the assumption that the seals must either eat the cod or else not affect them at all, thus undermining the author’s hypothesis.

This does not weaken the argument. This claim still doesn’t indicate whatsoever that the seal increase might contribute to the cod decrease. If anything, it strengthens the argument by indicating that the cod decline began independently of the seal increase.

Question

96% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

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

25% 128

138

75% 147

Question Stem Tags

Weaken

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

162

157

160

96%

167

159

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

PrepTest 106 - Section 1 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action