PT112.S1.Q26 > 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 the reason Vermeer used recurring items in his paintings is not because he lacked props. This is based on the fact that many of the recurring items in his paintings were expensive.

All we know from the premise is that many recurring items in Vermeer’s paintings are expensive. But this doesn’t prove anything about the reason Vermeer used the recurring items as props. How can the author reach the conclusion that the reason is not because he lacked props? We want to get from the fact many props were expensive to the conclusion that the reason Vermeer used recurring items is not because he lacked props:

If he used many expensive props → lacking props is not the reason he used recurring props

OR

If lacking props IS the reason he used recurring props → he would NOT have used many expensive props

The fact he borrowed the props doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or didn’t lack props.

The constant availability of the props that he used doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or didn’t lack props. Maybe he had only a few props, and those props were always available to him.

Whether the props were owned by his sister doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or whether this lack of props is the reason he used recurring items in his paintings.

The fact some recurring items in his paintings had sentimental importance to him does not imply that the reason he used those recurring items had nothing to do with lacking props. It’s possible he did lack props and that this why he used the same items over and over.

“Dearth” means lack. (E) connects the premise to the conclusion. If a lack of props was the reason for the recurring items, we wouldn’t see expensive props in the paintings. But since we do see expensive props in the paintings, (E) establishes that a lack of props was NOT the reason for the recurring items.

PrepTest 112 - Section 1 - Question 26

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action