PT12.S2.Q22

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 · 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 · 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

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · 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

(A) confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions of the stimulus' first sentence. Properly translated, the first sentence should read one of two ways:

1. If we don't [solve those problems], we won't attract more applicants.
2. If we have attracted more applicants, we must have [solved those problems].

If you chose (A), it's likely you should review unless as a conditional indicator.

(B) is wrong because failure to attract more applicants forces at least one of two options (lowering standards or facing an acute shortage). If we fail to attract more applicants, we could choose not to lower entrance standards and opt to face an acute shortage instead.

(C) links the first and last terms of our conditional chain, but does so in a way that confuses sufficiency and necessity. Properly translated, the inference linking the first term to the last should read one of two ways:

1. If we don't [solve problems], we won't maintain high quality care.
2. To maintain high quality care, we must [solve problems].

See (E) for the properly phrased inference, and see the analysis for more detail on the conditional chain.

(D) is wrong because failure to attract more applicants (which is what happens when the nursing profession fails to [solve those problems]) forces at least one of two options (lowering standards or facing an acute shortage).

If the nursing profession fails to [solve those problems], they could potentially avert an acute shortage of nurses by lowering entrance standards.

BUT WAIT! Isn't it unclear that lowering entrance standards will actually avert a shortage? Yes, but it's still possible to avert a shortage, which means (D)'s claim isn't 100% ironclad.