PT128.S2.Q3 > 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 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 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 Question 28

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

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

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

The researcher concludes that farmers would benefit more from using a mixture of paper and manure as mulch rather than using either material alone. As support, the researcher notes that paper mulch by itself is not effective at preventing soil erosion, while the mixture of paper and manure is very effective. Additionally, the mixture was shown in test plots to reduce soil erosion, and both paper and manure cost roughly the same.

The researcher doesn’t provide evidence about the merits of using manure alone, but she concludes that a mixture of paper and manure is better than using either material alone. The researcher overlooks the possibility that manure alone would be the best material.

We know that the mixture is better than using paper alone, but we don’t know enough to say that the mixture is better than using manure alone.

This is descriptively accurate, but it isn’t the flaw. This isn’t evidence that the argument needs to provide. We know that the mulch material needs to prevent or decrease soil erosion, and paper can’t do that. We don’t need to prove that paper doesn’t contribute to erosion.

The argument actually does demonstrate that mulch containing paper and manure works better than mulch containing only paper. We know that paper is ineffective, and in the test plots, the mixture of paper and manure was very effective.

This is the flaw. The researcher concludes that the mixture is better than manure or paper alone. We know that the mixture is better than paper alone, but there is no evidence that the mixture is better than manure alone.

It’s true that the argument doesn’t provide this evidence, but this isn’t the flaw––the argument doesn’t need this evidence. The entire argument is about which materials are most effective for mulch; non-mulch methods of preventing erosion are irrelevant to the argument.

This is descriptively accurate, but it’s not the flaw. Even if this information was included, the conclusion about the merits of using mixture of paper and manure over manure on its own still wouldn’t be supported.

PrepTest 128 - Section 2 - Question 3

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action