PT139.S4.Q4 > Analytics

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 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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

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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that crime statistics likely reveal as much about the motives of those who report them as they do about actual crime rates. She supports this with three examples: police may underreport or overreport crime to influence their image or budget; politicians may exaggerate or downplay crime to help their campaigns; and newspapers may sensationalize crime to boost readership.

The author supports her conclusion by providing three examples that demonstrate its truth.

The author only presents evidence for her conclusion; she doesn’t evaluate evidence against it.

The author cites three examples to support her conclusion. She cites police, politicians, and newspapers as examples of groups that may overreport or underreport crime statistics for their own purposes.

The author’s three examples— police, politicians, and newspapers who may manipulate crime statistics— are not necessary implications of an assumed generalization. Instead, they’re examples that serve as evidence to support the author’s conclusion.

The author never proposes a general solution, nor does she claim that the manipulation of crime statistics is a problem in the first place. She simply states her conclusion and gives examples to back it up.

The author’s evidence never appears to contradict her conclusion. It supports her conclusion by providing three examples that demonstrate it.

Question

87% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

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

25% 120

124

75% 147

Question Stem Tags

Method of reasoning or descriptive

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

153

87%

165

12%

163

154

147

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

PrepTest 139 - Section 4 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action