PT125.S2.Q14 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 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

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 Question 26

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 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that a speed reduction caused the decrease in serious accidents on Park Road. This is because the number of serious accidents was significantly lower in the 5 years after the speed reduction than in the 5 years before the speed reduction.

Based solely on a correlation between the speed reduction and the reduction in serious accidents, the author assumes that the former caused the latter. This means assuming there was no hidden third factor occurring at the same time that was the real reason for the decrease (e.g. road repairs, better driving instruction, less traffic, and so on).

Even if speeding tickets remained the same, the limit indeed dropped in 1986, so speeders were likely still driving more slowly. This doesn’t weaken the argument without more information.

In other words, the decrease was not due to a higher police presence. Eliminating an alternative cause doesn't weaken the argument; if anything, it strengthens.

This gives us another reason why there were fewer serious accidents near the end of the decate than near the start: fewer cars. By providing an alternative cause, this weakens the argument.

We only care about serious accidents, which result in either death or hospitalization. And we already know that serious accidents decreased, so this isn't relevant.

In other words, serious accidents decreased even despite the more inclusive definition. This doesn't weaken the argument, although it may well strengthen it.

PrepTest 125 - Section 2 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action