PT130.S1.Q3 > Question

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 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the Planning Department’s budget increase from $100,000 to $524,000 doesn’t justify the claim that the Planning Department spends five times as much to perform the same duties as before. No support is provided for this argument.

In order for the author to claim that the budget increase doesn’t mean the Planning Department now spends five times as much to perform the same duties, the author must assume that the Planning Department no longer performs only the same duties as before--perhaps it has taken on new duties--or that its budget is somehow not directly reflective of the money spent on its duties.

Irrelevant. Knowing about other departments doesn't help us decide whether or not the Planning Department, specifically, is spending five times as much to carry out the same duties.

Irrelevant. Knowing that the department spends less on one specific aspect of its budget doesn't tell us whether it has taken on new duties, or whether it spends five times as much overall on the same duties as before.

This isn't relevant. Even if the budget hasn't increased steadily, the fact remains that it has increased overall from $100,000 to $524,000.

This doesn’t strengthen the author’s argument. It just rules out the possibility that inflation was a contributing factor to the apparent increase in the budget. If anything, this just emphasizes the size of the increase: more than five times as much, in real terms. But this information doesn't help us decide what is being done with the additional money.

This supports the argument made in the letter. If the Planning Department’s duties have expanded beyond what they were in 2001, then it is likely not true that the 500% increase in the budget is solely being spent on the same duties as before.

PrepTest 130 - Section 1 - Question 3

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action