PT122.S2.Q7 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

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

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat.

This is supported by the claim that any fruit that was inspected is not infected. (This is a translation of “No fruit that was inspected is infected.”)

The claim “any fruit that is infected is also rotten” plays no role in supporting the conclusion, because it doesn’t connect to the concept of “inspected” or “safe to eat.”

We know from the premise that fruits that were inspected are not infected. But does this imply that those fruits are safe to eat? We don’t have anything that establishes what’s safe to eat.

We want to establish that if a fruit is not infected, then it’s safe to eat.

This establishes that if a fruit is rotten, it’s not safe to eat. But we want to establish what kind of fruit IS safe to eat. An answer establishing that something is NOT safe to eat does not prove that something IS safe to eat. Also, we don’t know whether fruits that are inspected are or are not rotten. So “rotten” doesn’t connect to anything relevant to the conclusion.

We don’t know whether fruits that are inspected are or are not rotten. So (B) doesn’t help establish that fruits that are inspected are safe to eat. You might have mistakenly thought that fruits that are not infected are not rotten — but none of the premises establishes this relationship.

The conclusion concerns fruits that were inspected and that are not infected. What would be true about infected fruits had they been inspected doesn’t affect fruits that were in fact inspected.

We want to establish what kind of fruit IS safe to eat. An answer establishing that something is NOT safe to eat does not prove that something IS safe to eat. (D) leaves open the possibility that it might still be unsafe to eat fruits that are uninfected; those fruits might be unsafe to eat for other reasons unrelated to infection.

(E) establishes that if a fruit is uninfected, it is safe to eat. Since we know that fruits that are inspected are not infected, (E) proves that fruits that are inspected are safe to eat.

PrepTest 122 - Section 2 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action