PT127.S2.Q23

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 Question 26

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

SECTION 3 · 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 4 · 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 Question 21

PASSAGE 4
Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

PrepTest 127 - Section 2 - Question 23

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████

Summary

First sentence - “Without” is used just like “unless” here, so it means:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct

Second sentence - “If” introduces the sufficient condition:

Tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct

The last sentence tells us why squirrel monkeys “flourish” in second-growth forest. But it is not a conditional and does not connect to the conditionals in the first two sentences.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

We can connect the first two sentences, although you need to do the contrapositive of one or the other to see the connection:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved

OR

If tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct → there was intervention of conservationists

Analysis by KevinLin

Show answer

23.

Which one of the following ███ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████████

No habitat other ████ █████████████ ██████ ████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████

Not supported. We know that second growth forests have a lot of the favorite insects and fruit. This doesn’t imply that other habitats don’t have these things.

At least some ██ ███ ████████████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████

From the first sentence, we know that if the monkeys survive, the conservationists must have intervened. But we don’t know exactly how the conservationists intervened. What they did might be unrelated to the forests. Sure, one way to guarantee survival is by preserving the second-growth forest habitat. But we don't know that this is the only way for the monkeys to survive.

Without plentiful supplies ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████████

We know that without the intervention of conservationists, the monkeys will go extinct. But we have no idea whether lack of favorite fruits and insects will lead to extinction. The monkeys can “flourish” because of those fruits and insects; but this doesn’t imply that without those things, the monkeys will die.

If conservationists intervene ██ ████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████

This confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. We know that if conservationists DON’T intervene, the monkeys will go extinct. This does not imply that if conservationists DO intervene, that the monkeys will survive.

Without the intervention ██ █████████████████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████

(E) is supported by the connection between the first two sentences:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved

Difficulty

Question

55% of people who answer get this correct

This is a very difficult question.

CURVE

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

25% 153

162

75% 172

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Inference

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

156

22%

162

10%

160

55%

167

Question history

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