PT108.S3.Q12 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · 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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The geologist concludes scientists must investigate the mountain for geological faults before a nuclear waste storage facility is built there. Why? Because a fault could allow waste to leak out or water to seep in while the nuclear waste is still dangerous, a disastrous circumstance.

The geologist assumes waiting to build the facility until the study is completed poses no greater risk than building the facility before the study. She assumes scientists will be able to tell, upon investigation, whether the mountain has a dangerous fault.

If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests a disaster caused by leakage or seepage could have lesser consequences in the future—because no humans would be left to suffer those consequences.

This supports the geologist’s assumption that a scientific study would be able to detect a geological fault in the mountain. It rules out the possibility that such a study would be inconclusive, and thus unhelpful.

This is irrelevant. There’s no indication the facility’s original purpose would affect the potential consequences of a nuclear accident or increase the ability of scientists to detect a geological fault.

If anything, this weakens the argument. If cost is an issue, it’s a reason not to conduct the study, and if cost is no issue, it’s irrelevant.

If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests there’s some chance nuclear waste will only be stored in this facility temporarily, which would lessen the chances of a nuclear disaster caused by a geological fault.

Question

96% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

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

25% 120

129

75% 141

Question Stem Tags

Strengthen

Popularity Avg. score

—

96%

166

158

138

166

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

PrepTest 108 - Section 3 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action