PT116.S3.Q19 > 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 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 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 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that a disease that would have had minor impacts on food supply in the past would be devastating today. This prediction is based on the observation that today’s crops lack diversity compared to crops in the past because farmers today only plant a few strains of a given crop.

The author assumes that farmers today don’t have any way besides diversity to protect against diseases.

The conclusion discusses specifically the diseases that would have had only minor impacts on the food supply in the past; the diseases referenced in (A) are outside of the scope of the argument.

This weakens the argument. It gives a reason that a disease that would have had a minor impact on the food supply in the past would not be devastating today: today’s farmers have another way to protect against the disease other than crop diversity.

This compares the less popular strains of the past with the popular modern strains; this comparison isn’t relevant. (C) also tells us that some old strains were more robust than the popular modern strains, which is consistent with the claim that today’s crops are more vulnerable.

The argument is about the crops that make up the food supply, not specifically human diets as a whole, so this is not relevant to the argument.

The argument is specifically about the damage caused by diseases; it could be the case that today’s crops are safer from insects and weeds, but that diseases are still able to devastate today’s food supply.

PrepTest 116 - Section 3 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action