PT125.S4.Q24 > 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

Downtown Petropolis is in economic decline. The author points to two facts as support: 1) 60 of their large buildings built 5 years ago have been demolished, 2) the number of their large buildings is an indicator of their economic health.

There are a few assumptions present.

1) We’re talking about the buildings that have disappeared from a set that was built 5 years ago, but we don’t know how many large buildings have been built in those 5 years, or how many were built prior to those 100 that are still standing. It could be that downtown Petropolis currently has 500,000 large buildings.

2) The support says that the number of large buildings is an indicator of economic health, but it is an assumption to say that more large buildings means better health. Maybe fewer large buildings is an indicator of better health.

It doesn’t matter if the demolitions are evenly spread or not. the argument is about total number of large buildings, not the distribution of them.

If negated, this does nothing to the argument. Whether there was a singular year where they had 300 buildings, or they’ve always had 600+ buildings, it doesn’t harm the argument.

We don’t need to know the reason behind the demolition. Irrelevant.

It isn’t necessary that the large buildings have been replaced by smaller ones. We don’t know anything about small buildings in terms of indicating economic health.

This must be true. Like we identified in our analysis, the argument is assuming that there have not been enough large buildings built prior to or during those 5 years to make up for the ones that were demolished.

PrepTest 125 - Section 4 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action