PT138.S4.Q10 > 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 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The letter writer argues that the editor’s plan for waste disposal will harm commercial fishing because many people signed petitions opposing it.

The argument is flawed because the evidence it cites is irrelevant to its conclusion. Just because people oppose the plan does not mean that the plan will damage fishing operations. These people could oppose the plan for any number of reasons. Even if they’re concerned about commercial fishing, there’s no reason to believe that they have the ability to accurately judge which plan is better for it. The fact that a group of random people oppose a plan tells us nothing about what the effects of that plan will be.

The argument only refers to the editor’s proposal without even describing what it is, so don't know whether there's distortion.

The letter writer never endorses the plan to use sand-capped pits. He only claims that the editor’s proposal will harm commercial fishing.

There’s no reason to believe that the letter writer has a personal interest in this matter, nor is there any indication that he doesn’t care about the truth.

This describes one of the problems with the evidence cited. There’s no reason to believe that the opinions of petition-signers indicate anything about what effects a waste-disposal plan will have on commercial fishing.

The writer’s conclusion is simply that the proposal in question will hurt commercial fishing. Whether there are other viable plans or not is irrelevant.

PrepTest 138 - Section 4 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action