PT148.S3.Q4 > 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

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 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

Limiting electric stove burners to 350°C would cause fewer fires. This is supported in two ways: first, by telling us that the minimum ignition temperature for certain things is above this point; second, by stating that electric burners can currently go far above the temperature needed to ignite these items.

The conclusion is the author’s claim about lowering fire risk: “Electric stovetop burners would cause fewer fires if their highest temperature were limited to 350°C (662°F).”

This is the conclusion verbatim, sans Fahrenheit. The premises in the argument are meant to convince us that this claim is true.

This explains that stoves would still be useful with the proposed limitation, but doesn’t actually form part of the argument about lowering fire risk. This is not supported by anything else, nor does it provide support to the conclusion.

This is a premise that supports the conclusion, because it shows that keeping stoves below this temperature would mean a lower risk that oil and fabric near the stove could catch fire.

This is a premise that supports the conclusion, because it shows that stoves currently reach a high enough temperature to ignite some materials that might come near the burners.

The author implies this, but it is support for the conclusion that limiting stovetop temperatures would reduce the number of fires, and she doesn’t actually say it. That makes it an unspoken premise (aka an assumption), not the main conclusion.

PrepTest 148 - Section 3 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action