PT142.S2.Q7 > 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

Talbert claims that chess is good for children (and we can reasonably assume from this that we should teach children chess). Why? Because it teaches the children mental maturity. And how does it do that? By encouraging skills like foresight and logical thinking, and discouraging flaws like carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness.

Sklar’s argument supports the unstated conclusion that we should not spend time teaching chess to children. Why not? Because the mental resources that children spend on chess could instead be used on more socially valuable pursuits like science.

We need to find a point of disagreement. Talbert and Sklar disagree about whether we should teach children chess.

Talbert agrees with this, but Sklar doesn’t express an opinion. Sklar doesn’t mention any of the benefits that chess may or may not have for children, and instead just focuses on the social value of chess compared to other pursuits.

Neither speaker states an opinion about this claim. Talbert doesn’t discuss activities other than chess at all. Sklar does talk about other activities, but only about their societal value, not their ability to promote mental maturity.

Sklar disagrees with this, but Talbert doesn’t state an opinion. Talbert doesn’t mention social value at all, and also doesn’t mention science at all.

Talbert agrees with this and Sklar disagrees: this is their disagreement. Talbert focuses entirely on the value of chess, so it’s reasonable to assume that Talbert believes we should teach chess. Sklar’s implicit main conclusion is that chess wastes time and shouldn’t be taught.

Neither speaker makes this claim. Talbert focuses entirely on the benefits of chess, not on the outcomes for children who don’t play chess. Sklar, on the other hand, never talks about mental maturity.

PrepTest 142 - Section 2 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action