PT134.S1.Q17 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

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 archaeologist concludes that the mosaics should’ve been left in the ancient city of Zeugma. As support, she says that current archaeologists already got all the information they need from them, and future archaeologists might be misled if the mosaics aren't there.

The archaeologist argues that the mosaics shouldn't have been removed from Zeugma for archaeological reasons, but she ignores other possible reasons for removing them. What if they should have been saved from the flood for cultural preservation, public education, or art history? To help justify her conclusion, she has to assume that only archaeological reasons matter when deciding whether the mosaics should’ve been left at Zeugma.

We have two archaeological reasons that support the idea that the mosaics should not have been removed. If only archaeological considerations matter in deciding whether the mosaics should’ve been removed, this helps justify the conclusion that they should not have been removed.

The archaeologist argues that the mosaics should’ve been left at Zeugma. The fact that future archaeologists will be able to tell that Zeugma flooded does not help justify her conclusion, nor does it satisfy her assumption that other reasons for removing the mosaics don’t matter.

The archaeologist never mentions the mosaics’ materials. She just claims that future archaeologists may be misled if the mosaics are gone. (C) doesn’t satisfy the assumption that other, non-archaeological reasons for removing the mosaics are irrelevant.

This doesn’t help justify the archaeologist’s reasoning, it weakens it. (D) suggests that future archaeologists probably won’t be misled by the mosaics’ absence.

The archaeologist says that the mosaics shouldn’t have been removed because it might mislead future archaeologists, not because of environmental reasons.

PrepTest 134 - Section 1 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action