PT136.S2.Q11 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 3 · 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

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that pollution is not eliminating many amphibian species every year. This is based on the fact that last year, biologists have learned that there are many more species of amphibians in existence than had previously been known.

The fact that we have discovered additional amphibian species doesn’t relate to whether pollution is killing amphibian species. Discovery of amphibian species doesn’t mean that there’s been an actual increase in the species that exist. So pollution can be killing amphibian species even as we are discover new species that we didn’t know about.

“Kinds of things” refers to different kinds of amphibians. “Things that are of those kinds” refers to examples of the kinds of amphibians. The author doesn’t confuse these two. The confusion relates to learning about new species vs. an actual increase in the number of species.

The author’s argument doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning, so there’s no confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions.

The author doesn’t conclude that one thing causes another, so the flaw doesn’t concern a reversal of cause and effect.

The author doesn’t conclude that one thing causes another, so the flaw doesn’t concern going from correlation to cause.

The author confuses changes in our knowledge of the number of amphibian species with changes in the number of amphibian species. The author mistakenly thinks our discovery of new species indicates that pollution isn’t killing species.

Question

75% of people who answer get this correct

This is a difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 145

153

75% 162

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Fact v. belief v. knowledge

Popularity Avg. score

161

157

154

12%

156

75%

166

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 136 - Section 2 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action