PT157.S2.Q4 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

An Economist believes that to sustain the country’s economy, they should pass laws making it more difficult for investors to remove their capital. This is because the economy depends on overseas capital and they cannot afford any reduction in that investment.

The Economist assumes that these laws would not reduce the net amount of investment from overseas investors.

While diversifying investments could help sustain the economy, this does not weaken the Economist’s argument. This is irrelevant to the argument’s premises and conclusion.

This challenges the Economist’s assumption that the overall amount of investment in the country would not decrease if such laws were enacted. This suggests that the law would cause further investment to ultimately decrease

If anything, this reinforces the idea that overseas investment is beneficial to the economy.

While this questions the efficacy of the laws, it does not address whether they will sustain the economy or harm future investment. That is the crux of the argument.

This does not challenge the economist’s reasoning. The economist just wants stronger laws.

PrepTest 157 - Section 2 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action