PT122.S4.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 editorialist concludes that we should investigate the safety of the chemicals used to treat lumber. The editorialist concedes that it may seem like potential harms of these chemicals would be reduced by the fact that lumber is used outside where fumes cannot accumulate. However, to support his claim, the editorialist references two examples where consumers may ingest the chemicals: when children play on playgrounds, and when the lumber is used to contain soil in gardens. In these cases, there is a risk that chemicals could be ingested, which supports the editorialist’s conclusion that these chemicals’ risks should be studied.

The conclusion is that the risks of chemicals used to treat lumber should be investigated: “Immediate steps should be taken to determine the safety of these chemicals since consumers could ingest them.

This is context for the argument, not the main conclusion. The editorialist argues that despite the apparent lack of danger, we should research these chemicals.

This kind of comparative statement is not supported by the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.

This is the main conclusion. The editorialist’s claim is a recommendation to study the chemicals used to treat lumber; the two examples given act as support for this claim.

While this may be supported by the argument, the editorialist is not making recommendations for parents. This is not the main conclusion. The purpose of the example about children was to illustrate a potential danger of the chemicals.

The editorialist is not making a claim on the danger of treated lumber; he is just addressing a possibility of danger that should be investigated further.

PrepTest 122 - Section 4 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action