PT138.S4.Q22 > 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

Money was probably invented independently in more than one society. Two premises are offered in support of this:

Money is universal across societies.

Money is a human invention.

Even if money is both universal and invented by humans, that doesn’t allow us to conclude that it was invented independently in multiple societies! What if it was invented in one place and then brought around the world from there? We need an answer choice that eliminates that alternative possibility—something that tells us that money can’t have originated in only one place.

With (A), we have the following premises: money is universal, money is a human invention, and some societies haven’t been influenced by any others. So we can conclude that the isolated societies and the societies they’re isolated from invented money independently of one another!

The language comparison is actually irrelevant to the argument. The premises and the conclusion are all about money, not language. Any additional information about language is therefore unhelpful!

The argument has nothing to do with non-inventions or innate ability—those are concepts the stimulus mentions in reference to language, while the argument is actually about money. This is just context intended to distract from the actual argument!

The argument is not concerned with money’s utility; rather, we care about its invention. The fact that money is useful is merely context to explain why money is universal—and to distract from the real structure of the argument!

This is irrelevant. (E) doesn’t tell us anything about the invention of money or the circumstances under which it came to be, so it doesn’t help us properly draw the conclusion.

PrepTest 138 - Section 4 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action