PT143.S4.Q16 > 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

There should not be prohibitions against pets in nursing homes. This is because pets can improve a person’s health. Pets can also make time more fulfilling, and this will become more important as people live longer.

The conclusion is a rejection of the prohibitions against pets in nursing homes: “these should be lifted.”

This is premise. It brings a stronger urgency to the premise that comes before it, which is that pets can make time in a nursing home more rewarding.

This is not mentioned in the stimulus. There’s no comparison between nursing home residents and any other group.

This rephrases the conclusion.

This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted.

This is a mashup of all premises. The author is indeed calling attention to the benefits derived from pets (health benefits, a feeling of reward) and to the incoming urgency (life span will increase), but all of this serves the conclusion: the prohibitions should be lifted.

PrepTest 143 - Section 4 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action