PT132.S4.Q23 > 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 author concludes that some early Hollywood films will be lost. She asserts this because films in the old nitrate format must be transferred to the new acetate format, but there is not enough time to transfer all nitrate films before some disintegrate.

The author assumes that just because we can’t save all films, this applies specifically to old Hollywood films. Maybe there are thousands of old movies from small producers that we don’t care about, but we have already preserved all of the important Hollywood movies.

Negating (A) gives us, “new technology for transferring nitrate film to acetate will eventually be developed.” This doesn’t specify when it will be developed, however, and it could very well be after all the nitrate film has deteriorated, so (A) is not necessary.

(B) tells us that there is another method for preserving films that is even less expensive, which could only weaken the argument. If this other method exists, it doesn’t matter if there isn’t enough time to transfer all old films to acetate—we could use this other method instead.

(C) would strengthen the argument, but it’s too strong to be necessary. The conclusion only states that some films will be lost, whereas (C) implies that a large number will be lost.

The author is assuming that just because all films can’t be preserved, this includes some old Hollywood films. (D) lets us know that we haven’t yet preserved all old Hollywood films, which is necessary to conclude that some will be lost.

If (E) is not true—if perhaps all old Hollywood films have the same chance of being lost—our conclusion is unimpacted. As long as some old Hollywood movies will be lost, we don’t care which ones they are.

PrepTest 132 - Section 4 - Question 23

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action