PT115.S4.Q18 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 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 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

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 · 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 Question 22 Question 23

PASSAGE 4

Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 4 · lr

Fisch's hypothesis is that the extinctions were caused by a dramatic shift to a harsh climate. Fisch's premise is that this shift happened too fast for the species to adapt.

Fisch assumes that if a species can’t adapt to dramatic climatic changes, those species will go extinct. In other words, Fisch assumes that these species couldn't survive in both climates without adaptation, which doesn't necessarily have to be true.

This weakens Fisch’s argument. This tells us that similar species, which also wouldn't have had time to adapt, didn't go extinct just because of the drastic change in climate. This suggests that climate change alone doesn't explain the extinction of these species.

This is more relevant to Foster's argument than to Fisch's. But for both arguments, we're not interested in the animals that survived. We're interested in the animals that went extinct, and why.

This supports Foster's argument, not Fisch's.

This is potentially useful evidence for Foster's argument, not Fisch's.

This strengthens Fisch's argument. This answer choice cuts off the possibility that even if the animals couldn't adapt to the new climate, they could have migrated somewhere else. Since we know that these species couldn't migrate to a milder environment, and that they couldn't adapt to the harsher climate, Fischer's argument that climate change caused these species' extinction seems more likely.

PrepTest 115 - Section 4 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action