Charles: Support During recessions unemployment typically rises. █████ ██████ █ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████████ █████ █████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████
██████ ███ █████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ █████████ ██████ █ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████
Charles concludes that air pollution from cars usually decreases during a recession. He supports this with a causal chain: the recession causes unemployment, which causes decreased commuting, which causes decreased car use, which causes decreased air pollution from cars.
However, Charles' causal chain only works so long as there are no overlooked factors interfering with the results; each possible factor must be assumed not to interfere. Darla points out one such factor: pollution can be increased by the age of cars, potentially offsetting a lower frequency of driving.
Darla comes to the unstated conclusion that air pollution from cars will not necessarily decrease. To do so, as mentioned, she points out a factor that Charles overlooks: the age of cars on the road. Although people may be driving less, Darla says they're likely to be driving older cars, which pollute more. Darla doesn't disagree with any of Charles' premises, but undermines their support of his conclusion.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████
It calls into ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████
Darla doesn't dispute any of Charles' premises. She goes along with Charles' claim that people will drive less; she just points out another relevant factor, the age of people's cars.
It makes an ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████
Darla's claims don't rely on Charles' conclusion being false, nor does she say Charles is definitely wrong. Darla only shows that Charles might be wrong; her evidence could be true regardless.
It presents an ██████████ █████████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
Darla raises an additional consideration: the age of people's cars, which she says affects how much they pollute. This weakens the support for Charles' conclusion, because even if people are driving less, higher pollution each time they drive could negate any benefits.
It argues that █████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████
Darla doesn't argue that Charles' conclusion is true. Instead, her argument shows that Charles' conclusion may not be true, by pointing out an overlooked relevant factor.
It presents an ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████████
Darla doesn't try to show that Charles' argument leads to an absurd result. She doesn't even say his conclusion is definitely untrue; Darla's point is just that Charles' premises don't guarantee his conclusion.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.