PT144.S2.Q9 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · 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 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author hypothesizes that a ban on fishing caused the fish population at Quapaw Lake to rebound, after declining ten years ago. The evidence is that the fish population at Quapaw Lake rebounded after a fishing ban was put in place. On the other hand, the fish population at Highwater Lake, where there was a similar decline but no fishing ban, didn’t rebound.

Based on observing a difference in outcome between the two lakes, the author hypothesizes that the fishing ban played a causal role. To undermine this argument, we can offer an alternative explanation, likely in the form of another relevant difference between the lakes. We can also look for evidence to the contrary, for example that fishing bans are poorly enforced and rarely decrease fishing.

This could be an alternative explanation if it told us that Quapaw Lake was different in this regard. However for all we know, Quapaw Lake has the same problem, so this doesn't weaken.

This gives us contrary evidence: if there was minimal fishing in Quapaw Lake to begin with, then the ban couldn't have a significant impact. This weakens by undermining the cause-and-effect connection.

If we knew anything about how the size of a lake impacts its fish population, this could be useful. But because we don't know anything of the sort, this is irrelevant to the argument.

It's impossible to know whether the population increases at those other lakes were the result of fishing bans or other, alternative causes. Because we don't have enough information, this doesn't affect the argument.

Like with (C), this might be useful if we had more information about what factors affect a fish population (for example if species diversity helps with population recovery), but since we don't, this isn't relevant.

PrepTest 144 - Section 2 - Question 9

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action