PT113.S2.Q4 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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

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 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that people who lived a century ago probably read a lot more than we read today. As support for this theory, the author cites the fact that those who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them.

The author is assuming that a lack of diversions would lead to people choosing to read more, as opposed to some other activity that could provide amusement. The author is also assuming that enough people were literate a century ago to read “much more” than people read today. Additionally, the author is assuming that people had enough free time to read at a similar level to the amount of time that people spend reading today.

Just because books are of low literary quality does not mean that people won’t be reading them. Also, (A) does not compare literary quality of books a century ago with literary quality of books today. It could be that many books published today are also of low literary quality.

(B) gives a reason that, even though people a century ago had fewer sources of diversion, they may not have read much more than we do today. Even if people today have more options for diversion, if we have more time to fill, we could be reading more than people a century ago.

More total book sales does not necessarily indicate more time spent reading per capita. Also, the population today is much higher than it was a century ago, which would account for the increase in book sales without an increase in time that people spend reading.

The argument connects available diversions to time spent reading, so book cost is out of the scope of the argument. Also, (D) compares book costs with the cost of goods in general, not the cost of other sources of amusement. Books could have been a cheap source of amusement.

The author only claims that there were fewer diversions a century ago, not that reading was the only diversion. Also, (E) does not make a comparison between conditions a century ago and conditions today.

PrepTest 113 - Section 2 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action