PT110.S3.Q6 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18

PASSAGE 4

Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 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 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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 Question 27

The author concludes that standard archeology cannot measure the ages of ancient paintings on limestone. Why? Because carbon always comes along with vegetable-based paint samples collected from limestone, and anything with carbon and vegetable matter can’t be aged using standard techniques.

The author assumes that neither vegetable matter nor carbon can be removed from the samples after collection. If either material can be separated out, then the remaining paint would not be restricted by the author’s general rule and standard techniques may be usable.

The author states that all such techniques involve removing limestone. This does not imply that any method allows paint to be collected without carbon coming along.

This disputes the assumption that the samples must retain their carbon. If limestone can be removed, then the carbon-free paint can be isolated and may be measurable using standard techniques.

This suggests a method to determine the limestone’s age, not the paint’s age. The author does not say that knowing the limestone’s age allows archaeologists to know the paint's age.

This does not imply the samples are free of carbon, since the carbon comes from the limestone. It eliminates the possibility that vegetable matter can be separated from the remaining paint, thus strengthening the argument.

This implies the amount of carbon in a sample can be known, not that it can be removed. The author states that the presence of carbon, not the variability of carbon, makes standard techniques unusable.

PrepTest 110 - Section 3 - Question 6

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action