PT158.S2.Q17 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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 · lr

The author concludes that it will not be economically feasible to colonize Mars, because establishing a colony would require stockpiling lots of basic materials at the site, and because transporting the materials through space would be so expensive.

One assumption is that there is no economic benefit that would offset the cost of the base materials. We don’t know anything about what economic benefits the colony might generate. Maybe the colony would be able to mine valuable minerals and make up for the cost.

Another assumption is that the source of the costs, the base materials, have to be transported in the first place. What if the materials could be found on Mars? Then it wouldn’t matter that it’s expensive to transport materials through space.

This isn’t necessary, because it could be that the materials don’t have to be transported from Earth to Mars. If they can be found on another planet besides Earth, then a colony could be established without the transportation costs decreasing.

Even if the cost of transporting materials was expected to decline by a small amount, it could still be possible for the argument to be valid. If the costs decline by .1%, it might still be economically infeasible. Thus, it is not necessary that costs do not decline at all.

(C) would strengthen the argument — but it isn’t necessary. We are given that costs of transporting materials through space are very expensive. Even if the materials were on the moon, we would still have to transport them through space, so the argument could still be valid.

It could be that there’s a lot of benefit — the argument is about whether it is economically feasible.

We do need to know that there is no financial benefit that would make the colony economically feasible. But this is different from their being no significant benefit at all.

If a colony could get all their basic materials on Mars, then there would be no need to transport them through space. Thus, it wouldn’t matter that it’s expensive to transport materials through space, and the colony might not be economically infeasible.

PrepTest 158 - Section 2 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action