PT147.S1.Q17 > 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 Question 26

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 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · 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 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

The politician's conclusion is that installing the new, more readable signs is a colossal waste of time and money. This is based on the premise that no one is complaining about the current signs.

The politician assumes that replacing the current signs is only justified if people have complained about those signs. This means the politician doesn’t believe there’s any other good reason to replace the signs, even if people aren't complaining about them. Having more readable signs might have beneficial effects on traffic, for instance, even without people being consciously aware of those effects. The politician assumes such a scenario is not the case. The politican also assumes that the amount of time and money being invested into replacing the signs is significant enough to constitute a "colossal waste".

We don’t care which specific features of the new signs improve readability. We already know that they improve readability: we just want to know whether that feature outweighs the politician's claim that these signs are a colossal waste of time and money.

Knowing the relative cost of the signs doesn't tell us whether the amount being spent on the new signs is a \"colossal waste\" or not. Even if the new signs cost significantly more, we don't know whether the new amount is a significant part of the city budget, or whether it is counterbalanced by potential benefits of the new signs.

This is important to know. If the city already replaces many signs each year in the course of ordinary maintenance, then the city is already spending time and money on swapping out signs, so it seems less likely that putting up these new signs, even if they cost slightly more, will constitute a \"colossal waste\" of resources. If not, then the city would be starting a brand-new project that no one has asked for, which would lend support to the politician's claim.

We’re not interested in other cities. Perhaps their signs were recently replaced, or else don’t need to be replaced for the same reason the city in question is choosing to replace its signs.

Irrelevant. Even if experts were consulted to make the sign more readable, we don't know what those experts thought about whether or not the city actually needed to replace its current signs. So this answer choice doesn't help us determine whether putting up new signs is a \"colossal waste\" of time and money.

PrepTest 147 - Section 1 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action