PT107.S3.Q3 > 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

In response to the land developer’s claim that it is a waste of money attempting to preserve species that will disappear regardless of efforts, the environmentalist points out that this claim is similar to concluding we should not spend money to cure cancer because humans are mortal.

The environmentalist counters the position held by the land developer. He does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously indefensible conclusion.

There is no dilemma in the land developer’s argument. The land developer does not present a situation where a difficult choice needs to be made between two or more solutions.

The environmentalist does not attack the land developer’s character. He addresses the land developer’s argument directly.

The environmentalist does not state that the land developer’s argument requires more evidence. His position is that the land developer’s argument is ridiculous.

PrepTest 107 - Section 3 - Question 3

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action