PT142.S2.Q4 > Question

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 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

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 argues that the bill to ban fishing in Eagle Bay should be passed. He supports this by pointing out the bay's high water pollution levels and citing a study showing that 80% of the bay’s fish contain toxin levels above safety standards, so continued fishing in Eagle Pass could seriously harm public health.

The author supports his conclusion by citing evidence showing that not banning fishing in Eagle Bay could greatly harm public health.

The author presents evidence that the toxic contamination of fish in Eagle Bay could have grave effects on public health, not that it has had grave effects on the local fishing economy.

The author doesn't refer to any moral principle, nor does he present evidence that the particular moral principle in (B) is usually correct.

The author’s doesn’t present any evidence that opponents of the ban failed to weigh its negative effects against its positive ones. In fact, he doesn’t mention opponents of the ban at all. He just notes that there is “widespread concern” over the economic effect of the ban.

By citing water pollution levels and a recent study of toxin levels in the bay’s fish, the author presents evidence that failing to enact the ban would bring unacceptable public health risks.

The author never presents evidence that the ban would reduce toxin levels in the bay’s fish. He instead presents evidence to show that, because those toxin levels are so high, failing to enact the ban would risk public health.

PrepTest 142 - Section 2 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action