PT136.S2.Q1 > Question

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 the city council should adopt the mayor’s plan. This is based on the assertion that there are only two options: either the council adopts the mayor’s plan, or they do nothing. And, doing nothing isn’t a viable option.

The author presents a false dichotomy between adopting the mayor’s plan and doing nothing. Why can’t the city council do something else besides the mayor’s plan and nothing? Maybe there’s a different strategy that could be used. The author doesn’t provide any reason to think the city council’s options are limited to the two described.

There’s nothing flawed about basing a projection only on conservative estimates. Conservative estimates are less extreme; if less conservative estimates were used, we have no reason to think that gridlock wouldn’t occur as quickly.

The two options are mutually exclusive — doing nothing, by definition, cannot happen at the same time as adopting the mayor’s plan. So the author isn’t assuming the options are mutually exclusive.

The author never made any predictions about what occurs after ten years. So this possibility isn’t something that undermines the author’s argument.

The argument concerns how to accommodate projected increases in automobile traffic. The author never cited to economic concerns or reached a conclusion about economic concerns. So the failure to address the cost of traffic gridlock is irrelevant.

The author presents only two choices — adopting the mayor’s plan or doing nothing. But there was no reason given for why these are the only two options. This presents a false dichotomy.

PrepTest 136 - Section 2 - Question 1

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action