PT151.S2.Q2 > Analytics

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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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 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The author concludes that the tax on saturated fat should not have been repealed so soon.

Why?

Because it was in effect for only seven months before it was repealed.

Why isn’t seven months enough to evaluate whether a tax is successful? We want a principle helping to connect the fact that it was in effect for only seven months to the judgment that it should not have been repealed so soon. For example:

If a tax has been in effect for only seven months, then it should not be repealed yet, even if it seems to have some undesirable consequences.

(A) would allow us to reach a conclusion that a tax should NOT be implemented. But it doesn’t relate to whether a tax that is already implemented should be repealed.

(B), restated, asserts that if a tax intended to affect people’s health hasn’t been in effect for at least one year, then it’s impossible to adequately gauge the impact of it. We know the tax was intended to reduce consumption of healthy foods. We also know that it was in effect for less than one year. So (B) allows us to infer that it’s impossible to adequately gauge the impact of the tax. That supports the judgment that we should have waited to repeal it.

(C) concerns what’s required before we should implement a law. But it doesn’t relate to whether a law that is already implemented should be repealed.

(D) allows us to reach a conclusion that a law SHOULD be repealed. But we’re trying to support a judgment that a law should NOT have been repealed.

(E) allows us to suport a conclusion that a tax should NOT be applied to something. But we’re trying to support a judgment that a tax that was already applied should have been kept in place.

Question

96% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 124

132

75% 140

Question Stem Tags

PSA - find the rule

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Rule-application

Value judgment

Popularity Avg. score

150

96%

161

145

151

149

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 151 - Section 2 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action