Prolonged exposure to nonionizing

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong5% picked this

   People with short-term exposure to nonionizing radiation are not at risk of developing

   Too Strong: not at risk Opposite Logic We were informed that long term exposure to NR, higher risk of ST cancer This is making the overly extreme and opposite-logic move of saying, not long term exposure to NR, no risk of ST cancer There might be many things that increase our risk of soft-tissue cancer besides nonionizing radiation. So even if people are avoiding this risk factor, that doesn't mean they have zero risk. A nonsmoker doesn't have zero risk of lung cancer (maybe they live near a factory that billows our noxious smoke / maybe there are genetic forms of lung cancer).

   5%
2. B

   Out of Scope: other cancers1% picked this

   Soft-tissue cancers are more common than

   We have no information about how rare or common soft-tissue cancer is vs. how rare or common other cancers are.

   1%
3. C

   Out of Scope: frequently cured cancer2% picked this

   Soft-tissue cancers are frequently cured spontaneously when sources of nonionizing radiation are removed from

   We have zero information about anyone ever being cured of cancer, let alone this frequently happening in a spontaneous way.

   2%
4. D

   Correct87% picked this

   Certain electrical devices can pose health risks for

   Why this is right

   This is just reinforcing our Inference: prolonged exposure to electric power lines, electric blankets, or video-display terminals increases our chance of developing soft-tissue cancer. Electrical blankets and video-display terminals are "certain electrical devices". Having an increased chance of developing cancer is "a health risk". To support this answer choice, we just need to know of at least one electrical device that comes with a health risk, and we know of at least two.

   Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   87%
5. E

   Opposite Logic One-Claim Support5% picked this

   Devices producing electromagnetic radiation at frequencies higher than that of visible light do not increase a person’s risk

   If we're told in an Inference paragraph that, tall men love their mothers can we infer then that small men don't love their mothers Of course not. It's probably the case that almost all men, regardless of height, love their mothers. This kind of trap answer occurs frequently in Reading Comp, Necessary Assumption, and Inference. If we read "Black lives matter", then the test will try to bait us into picking an answer that accuses that sentence of saying "non-black lives don't matter". We should also feel wary any time we're considering an answer on Must Be True / Most Supported that is supported by only one claim. This answer choice would be derived (incorrectly) from just the first sentence. But 99% of correct answers on MBT / MS are being derived by combining 2 or more claims together.

   5%