Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
94% (01:48) correct
6% (01:29) wrong based on 232 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Scientists propose placing seismic stations on the floor of the Pacific Ocean to warn threatened coastal communities on the northwestern coast of the United States of approaching tidal waves caused by earthquakes. Since forewarned communities could take steps to evacuate, many of the injuries and deaths that would otherwise occur could be avoided if the government would implement this proposal.
The answer to which of the following questions would be most important in determining whether implementing the proposal would be likely to achieve the desired result?
(A) When was the last time that the coastal communities were threatened by an approaching tidal wave?
(8) How far below sea level would the stations be located?
(C) Would there be enough time after receiving warning of an approaching tidal wave for communities to evacuate safely?
(0) How soon after a tidal wave hits land is it safe for evacuees to return to their communities?
(E) Can the stations be equipped to collect and relay information about phenomena other than tidal waves caused by earthquakes?
The main "positive" outcome is the potential reduction in injury & deaths. But for this to happen, we must know whether the early warning system is "early enough" . Option C correctly asks this question and is the best option of the ones given.
ANS = C - This question is the "Evaluate the conclusion/argument." where, we need to find the statement which provides information to decide whether the assumption in the argument is true or false. Now, the assumption might be - Do people get enough time to evacuate? C - ANS - If it is far away - More time - so people have time to evacuate. If too close - then no time to evacuate. So C.