PT130.S3.Q7 > 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 researcher concludes that the new drug should be discontinued because it disrupts the body's normal functions and causes severe side effects.

The researcher concludes that the drug should be discontinued because of its many costs, like nausea and hair loss. However, she fails to consider the benefits of the drug or the costs of discontinuing it. For example, if the drug is the only way to save lives, then its benefits may far outweigh its costs.

The researcher doesn't define “normal functioning,” but she doesn’t need to. Even if she did define it, it wouldn’t support her argument because she still fails to consider any benefits of the drug that might outweigh the cost of disrupting “normal functioning.”

The researcher argues that the drug should be discontinued because of its many costs, but she ignores its potential benefits. That is, she fails to consider the costs of not taking the drug, which might be much more severe than nausea, hair loss, and joint pain.

The researcher never makes this assumption. She just argues that those patients who are treated with the drug usually experience severe side effects.

The researcher doesn't mention how long it takes for the drug to work, but even if she did, it wouldn’t support her argument because it wouldn’t address the question of whether there are benefits of the drug that outweigh its costs.

The researcher actually does acknowledge this by saying that the drug “usually wreaks havoc” on patients’ bodies. Whether some patients’ side effects are less severe doesn’t affect the argument that the drug usually causes severe side effects and thus must be discontinued.

PrepTest 130 - Section 3 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action