PT135.S1.Q21 > 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 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that government incentives to plant trees will accelerate rather than slow global warming. She bases her conclusion on a study that shows native grasses to be more effective at absorbing carbon dioxide than trees.

The author makes several key assumptions:

(1) The second study is correct. The author bases her conclusion on this study, so if it’s flawed, then the argument is flawed.

(2) Some native grasses would be removed to plant trees. If no native grasses are removed, then even if the trees are less than ideal, they would still help to slow global warming.

(3) There is no factor other than CO2 emissions more important to global warming. If trees remove less CO2 but help with global warming in some other way, the conclusion would no longer follow.

(A) Is too strong to be necessary. We already know that trees don’t help as much as native grasses, so we don’t need further information on why that is the case. As long as trees remove less CO2, they will be less helpful in combating global warming.

(B) is too strong to be necessary. If it said some farmers would not plant trees without an incentive, that would be necessary. We only need to know that at least some grasses will be replaced with trees, and not the exact amount.

(C) could strengthen the argument by implying that grasses replaced with trees could not be regrown, but it is too strong to be necessary. Even if the grasses can be regrown, we don’t know if farmers will bother to replant them, or if enough farmers will replant to offset the grasses already lost.

If no native grasses are removed, then any trees planted would still help to absorb CO2 and slow global warming, even if they would be less helpful than native grasses.

(E) could strengthen our argument by implying that native grasses will be removed, but it is too strong to be necessary. Even if certain governments are trying to preserve native grasses, we don’t know if they will be effective, or if other governments will try to preserve their grasses as well.

PrepTest 135 - Section 1 - Question 21

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action