PT124.S3.Q2 > Analytics

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 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that more environmental regulations will not help the environment. This is based on the fact that extensive environmental regulations have been enacted since the 1970s, but the condition of the environment during that time has worsened.

The author overlooks the possibility that the environment would have been damaged even more had the environmental regulations not been enacted. It’s possible that the environmental regulations have helped slow the pace of decline, which shows that we cannot point to the declining environment and conclude from it that more environmental regulations won’t help.

Although the author mentions the environmentalists have insisted upon something, that isn’t an attack on the environmentalists’ character, background, or behavior. The premises simply point out that regulations have been passed, and the environment has declined during that time.

The author doesn’t indicate that removing regulations are the only way to prevent further decline. The conclusion is is merely that more environmental regulations aren’t going to help. Perhaps keeping the same level of regulations and doing something else is the solution.

The author fails to consider that the environment could have worsened even more without the regulations that were passed. In other words, the regulations could have helped the environment, even if the environment worsened.

The author doesn’t advocate for reducing regulations. The conclusion is merely that more regulations will not help. Also, the argument isn’t based on the “importance” of one thing over another thing.

The argument doesn’t need to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents. There’s nothing flawed about making an argument without considering other groups’ views.

Question

98% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 129

136

75% 142

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Eliminating options

Popularity Avg. score

149

151

98%

164

148

151

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 124 - Section 3 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action