PT143.S1.Q5 > 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 · 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

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The environment minister concludes that planting lots of trees will help the country fulfill its commitment to substantially reducing carbon emissions. This is because trees absorb carbon dioxide.

The minister is essentially making a cost-benefit argument, that tree planting will have more benefits than costs related to the country's ten-year emissions-reduction strategy. But because the minister doesn't mention any possible costs, we can weaken by showing some way that planting trees could actually lead to more emissions, outweighing the carbon that the new trees absorb.

The argument is about the effect that planting trees would have on carbon emissions, not the logistics of planting those trees. Whether the country can actually plant enough trees isn't relevant, so this doesn't affect the argument.

Even if we take this to mean that deforestation isn't the only cause of carbon emissions, that doesn't make a difference to the argument. The minister only claims that planting trees would reduce emissions, not solve them entirely.

This gives us a cost of tree-planting that will affect the country's carbon emissions over the next ten years. That weakens the minister's argument, which only considers the trees' benefit. Even if the trees will be net beneficial in the long term, now it doesn't look like they'll reduce emissions in the next ten years.

The argument's scope is limited to whether planting trees would help to reduce emissions within ten years. Whether or not that's the correct time frame isn't relevant, so this doesn't weaken.

Like (B) and (D), this doesn't affect the argument becauase it goes beyond the defined scope. The minister's claim is that trees will reduce carbon emissions, not that they'll solve global warming altogether.

PrepTest 143 - Section 1 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action