PT120.S4.Q5 > Question

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 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18

PASSAGE 4

Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The phenomenon is that sickles found at one site had scratched blades, and sickles found at a second site did not. The author hypothesizes that the sickles from the first site were used to harvest grain, and the sickles from the second site were not. This is because sickle blades used to harvest grain always become scratched.

The author assumes that because the sickle blades found at the first site were scratched, they must have been used to harvest grain. In extension, the author assumes there is no other function for sickle blades that could have resulted in the scratches. In other words, the author assumes that harvesting grain is necessary for scratched sickle blades.

This does not affect the argument. The author’s hypothesis is only an explanation for “this evidence” (i.e., the blades that were actually found)—blades that were there but not found are outside the scope of the argument.

This weakens the argument. It attacks the assumption that because the sickle blades at the first site had scratches, the scratches must have been from harvesting grain. Remember: harvesting grain is sufficient for scratched sickle blades, not necessary.

This does not affect the argument. (C) does not imply anything about whether the sickle blades from the first site were used to harvest grain in addition to serving ritual purposes.

This does not affect the argument. We already know that the sickle blades at the second site were not used to harvest grain. It is reasonable to assume that other tools were used for harvesting, as the sickle blades were not.

This does not affect the argument. The argument is concerned with the function of the sickle blades, not with who made them.

PrepTest 120 - Section 4 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action