PT111.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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · 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

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that it's safe to harvest peat from the country's wetlands. Why? Because opponents are mistaken to claim that peat harvesting would contaminate the water supply. This is because in Ireland, where peat has been harvested for centuries, the water supply is uncontaminated.

The author assumes that the country is similar to Ireland in ways that are relevant to peat harvesting. If this wasn’t true, then the author couldn’t draw conclusions about how harvesting peat would affect the water supply.

The author also assumes that peat is safe to harvest so long as it doesn’t contaminate the water supply—in other words, that there are no other risks to peat harvesting.

The argument isn't concerned with ecological change in general, just with the effects of peat harvesting. This doesn't give us any useful information about peat or wetlands, so it's irrelevant.

This affirms the author's assumption that Ireland is relevantly similar to the country in question. This makes it more likely that peat harvesting will be equally safe as in Ireland, strengthening the argument.

The argument isn't about water safety overall, just the effects of peat harvesting. In other words, if it isn't about peat, it isn't relevant.

We don’t know enough about other countries to compare. The only other relevant country here is Ireland, because the author draws a direct analogy. This doesn’t mention Ireland, so it's not helpful.

We’re trying to strengthen the claim that peat harvesting won’t contaminate the water supply. The benefits of peat for fuelling a nation are irrelevant to the effects on the water supply.

PrepTest 111 - Section 3 - Question 3

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action