PT21.S2.Q5

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

PASSAGE 3
Question 14 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 Question 28

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

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 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2
Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3
Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4
Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

PrepTest 21 - Section 2 - Question 5

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have increased the concentration of phosphorus in the local swamp above previous levels, but Conclusion the claim that the increase in phosphorus is harming the swamp’s native aquatic wildlife is false; Support the phosphorus concentration in the swamp is actually less than that found in certain kinds of bottled water that some people drink every day.

Structure: Counter-Argument

The author rejects the claim that the increase in phosphorus in the local swamp — which he concedes "may well have" occurred — is harming the swamp's native wildlife. The support he provides for his position is that the swamp's phosphorus concentration is below the phosphorus level in "certain kinds of bottled water" that "some people" drink daily.

Analysis: Notable Flaws

The fact that "some people" regularly drink "certain kinds" of bottled water with higher phosphorus levels than the swamp's tells us nothing about whether the swamp's phosphorus level is harming the local wildlife or not. For one thing, maybe those people are actually harmed by drinking these brands of water; the author seems to assume they aren't, without providing evidence. Even if these people aren't harmed, it might take a much lower phosphorus concentration to harm aquatic wildlife than it does to harm humans. So the evidence the author relies on to reject the idea that the phosphorus increase is harming wildlife completely fails to support his position.

Analysis by ArdaschirArguelles

Show answer

The argument is vulnerable to █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██

makes exaggerations in ███████████ ███ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████

Incorrect. The author states the opposing claim as saying that "the increase in phosphorus is harming the swamp's native aquatic wildlife." We have no reason to think this is an exaggerated formulation of the opposing claim. There's no over-the-top language, and besides, we don't have the opposing side's formulation of their claim to compare this to. So (A) doesn't capture the flaw in the argument.

bases its conclusion ██ ███ █████████████ ██████

Incorrect. The author only makes one claim in support of his conclusion. There aren't any contradictions in his argument. The problem is that the one supporting claim he makes actually isn't relevant to his conclusion.

relies on evidence ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███████████

Correct. The author concludes that the phosphorus increase isn't harming local aquatic wildlife because the phosphorus concentration is lower than what some humans are regularly exposed to in bottled water. As we said in our analysis, we don't even know that these humans are unharmed, let alone how humans' tolerance of phosphorus compares to that of "aquatic wildlife." So the only evidence the author provides for his conclusion is in fact irrelevant.

concedes the very █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████

Incorrect. The claim the author is arguing against is the claim that the phosphorus increase is harming local aquatic wildlife. He nowhere concedes this claim.

makes a generalization ████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████ █████████

Incorrect. The author's conclusion isn't a generalization. It's a claim about the effects of the phosphorus increase in this specific swamp. And the problem with the author's evidence isn't that he doesn't specify sources for his supporting claim — it's that the claim he makes isn't relevant to his conclusion.

Difficulty

Question

95% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

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

25% 132

140

75% 148

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stems that ask us to articulate a flaw in the stimulus' argument, either in abstract terms or by pointing out a weakness. Learn more.

Stimulus Tags

Analogy

Stimuli that feature arguments by analogy, where the success or failure of that analogy informs the answer choices. Learn more.

Causal reasoning

Stimuli that feature the logic of causation (e.g. phenomenon-hypothesis, causal chain, experiments). Learn more.

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

151

153

95%

167

162

156

Question history

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