After an area has been hit by a natural disaster, there is often a great demand for plywood for repairing damaged homes. █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████████
The argument concludes that retailers who sell plywood in disaster areas do not make more money per sheet of plywood than they did pre-disaster, even though they raise their prices. In support, the argument advances the sub-conclusion that selling plywood costs more for retailers than pre-disaster. In turn, this is supported by the claim that transport costs are higher in disaster areas.
However, we can see a gap between the sub-conclusion that selling plywood is more costly, and the main conclusion that retailers aren't making extra profits. We don't know if the increased cost fully balances out the increased price. If the price increase is higher than the cost increase, the argument is in trouble.
The clause “the plywood’s cost ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a counterexample to █ █████
The argument doesn't mention any claim that this example could counter. No one's saying that disasters never lead to increase retail costs, or anything like that. The argument as a whole counters a claim about price-gouging, but this specific clause isn't a counterexample.
the main conclusion ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████
Although the clause in question does receive support from the claim that transporting goods into disaster areas is more expensive, it's still not the main conclusion. That's because this clause further supports the conclusion that plywood retailers are not unduly profiting from disasters, making the clause a sub-conclusion.
a subsidiary conclusion ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████
The clause in question is supported by evidence that transporting plywood into disaster areas is more expensive. In turn, the clause supports the main conclusion that plywood retailers aren't making unusually high profits per sheet selling to disaster areas. Because it both receives and gives support, this clause is indeed a sub-conclusion.
an example used ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████
(D) has the same problem as (A): the specific clause in question isn't serving as a counterexample to any particular claim or position. It's a factual statement that's used to support a counterargument, not an example of a broader point.
background information used ██ ███████ █ ███████ ███ ███ ████████
The clause in question directly supports the main conclusion that plywood retailers aren't price-gouging in disaster areas. That takes it out of context and into the argument proper. The context in this stimulus is the
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.