PT132.S2.Q5 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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

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

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 Question 28

SECTION 4 · lr

The resident concludes that if all remaining lead paint is eliminated from homes in the area, child lead poisoning will be eradicated. This is based on the observation that childhood lead poisoning has declined since gasoline and paint stopped being made with lead. However, there is still lead paint in some homes.

The resident claims that the elimination of lead paint from homes will completely eradicate childhood lead poisoning in the area. This overlooks the possibility that other sources of lead could be present. Those sources could continue to contribute to lead poisoning, even if lead paint in houses is eliminated.

There’s no reason to believe that the statistical claims used in the argument are unreliable.

There isn’t any assumption in the argument that assumes the conclusion is true.

The resident overlooks the possibility that other major lead sources could still cause childhood lead poisoning in the area. However, if that were true, it would severely undermine the resident’s conclusion.

The argument doesn’t make any claims about whether lead paint in homes can be eliminated economically. The argument only makes claims about what would happen if it were eliminated.

The argument doesn’t take for granted that children reside in all of the homes with lead paint, only that there are at least some children residing in homes with lead paint.

PrepTest 132 - Section 2 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action