PT107.S1.Q17 > 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

SECTION 2 · 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 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The columnist concludes that there can’t be real evidence that relaxed radiation standards at nuclear reactors caused the rise in cancer rates nearby. She supports this by saying that it’s impossible to know if a particular case of cancer was caused by radiation, toxins, smoking, poor diet, or genetics.

The columnist's conclusion doesn't follow from her argument. She assumes that because the cause of individual cancer cases can't be known, there can't be evidence linking radiation at nuclear reactors to higher cancer rates nearby. But evidence could still exist that explains the overall rise in cancer rates, even if it doesn't explain the cause of each case.

Even if the columnist’s premise is true and causes of individual cancer cases can’t be known, her conclusion doesn’t follow. Evidence could still exist that explains the overall rise in cancer rates near the reactors, even if it doesn't explain the cause of each individual case.

The columnist doesn’t make this assumption. Rather than assuming that cancer that follows exposure to nuclear reactors was caused by those reactors, she argues that there’s no real evidence linking nuclear reactors to the rise in nearby cancer rates.

The columnist doesn’t use evidence from a particular case of cancer or draw a conclusion about causes of cancer in general. Instead, she concludes that there’s no evidence linking nuclear reactors to the rise in nearby cancer rates.

The columnist lists many other possible causes of cancer and argues that one can’t know the cause of a cancer case at all.

The columnist doesn’t conclude that nuclear reactors do not cause cancer. She just concludes that there cannot be evidence that nuclear reactors cause cancer.

PrepTest 107 - Section 1 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action