Support If the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented, ozone levels in the city's air would be one fifth lower than current levels. █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ █████ █ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ █████████████ ██████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████
The author concludes that the city would spend a billion dollars less on ozone-related health costs if the proposed measures are adopted. As support, she says that ozone is responsible for over $5 billion in health costs, and the measures would cut ozone levels in the city’s air by one fifth.
The author concludes that the measures would reduce ozone-related healthcare costs by one fifth, simply because they would reduce ozone levels in the city’s air by one fifth. But her premises never prove that ozone-related healthcare costs and ozone levels change in proportion to each other. It’s possible that the measures could reduce ozone levels without affecting ozone-related healthcare costs at all.
The argument is most vulnerable ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████
Irrelevant. The author only addresses ozone-related health costs. It doesn’t matter whether other health costs increase.
presumes, without providing █████████ ████ █████████████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████
The author concludes that ozone-related health costs would reduce by one fifth, simply because ozone levels would reduce by one fifth. In doing so, she assumes, without any evidence, that ozone-related health costs and ozone levels change in proportion to one another.
provides no explicit ██████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███████
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether the proposed measures will actually be adopted. The author just argues that if they are adopted, ozone-related health costs would go down.
attempts to support ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████
The author doesn’t make this mistake. Her premises don’t support her conclusion well, but she isn’t relying on an appeal to emotions. Instead, she assumes that ozone-related health costs go down at the same rate as ozone levels themselves.
discusses air pollution ██ █████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██████████████ █████
The author’s argument only addresses ozone-related health costs. She isn’t trying to draw attention away from other health costs; they’re just not relevant to her argument.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.