PT119.S2.Q1 > 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 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

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

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 · lr

Cox doesn’t make an argument, instead just claiming without support that the consumer council didn’t sufficiently justify its decision to pull Derma-35 from the market.

Crockett argues that Cox is wrong; in other words, that the council did sufficiently justify its decision. What was the justification? The council cited the side effect of blemishes, which Crockett says are a legitimate health concern. Crockett clearly believes that citing a legitimate health concern justified the council’s decision.

We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Cox and Crockett disagree about whether or not the council’s decision was sufficiently justified.

Neither speaker states their own opinion about whether or not Derma-35 should stay on the market. Each just discusses whether the council had an adequate basis for its decision.

Neither speaker mentions a causal connection between blemishes and inflammation. Cox doesn’t mention blemishes or inflammation at all. Crockett mentions both, but doesn’t say whether they’re related.

Crockett’s argument indicates that the council based its decision on the threat of blemishes rather than inflammation (or at least it said it did). Cox, however, doesn’t discuss either blemishes or inflammation at all.

Cox disagrees with this and Crockett agrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Cox’s claim is that the council did not give an adequate reason for its decision. Crockett’s argument disagrees with this claim, and tries to prove that the council’s reason was adequate.

Neither speaker offers an opinion about whether inflammation is a serious health threat. Only Crockett even mentions inflammation, and even then doesn’t say anything about its status as a health threat.

PrepTest 119 - Section 2 - Question 1

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action