PrepTest 103, Section 3, Question 4
The government has spent heavily to clean groundwater(71 more words not shown)
The proposal about how the(15 more words not shown)
- AIt represents an(2 more words not shown)
- BIt both supports(10 more words not shown)
- CIt is the(11 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(8 more words not shown)
- EIt presents an(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
No site has been completely cleaned? That doesn't mean the cleanup accomplished nothing. A site could be ninety-nine percent clean and still fail that description.
The next fact is more troubling: each year, industrial accidents add more toxic chemicals than cleanup removes. The total problem is growing even while the government spends heavily on it.
Preventing spills sounds like a sensible response. My next question would be whether prevention actually works and how the resources would be used. The author addresses the effectiveness question by saying prevention is far more effective than cleanup. Yet the entire prevention budget is smaller than the amount spent on just one typical cleanup site.
So the recommendation is to redirect more money toward prevention. The ongoing contamination and the comparison of effectiveness and spending explain why the author wants that change. We don't have to resolve every practical question about carrying it out to understand the point.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what role that budget recommendation plays. Put the paragraph's message in your own words: spend more on preventing spills. Everything else is there to make that recommendation seem reasonable. That makes it the main conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The proposal has support. The author points to the growing contamination problem, prevention's greater effectiveness, and the small amount spent on prevention. We might still question the policy, but disagreement with a recommendation wouldn't make its stated reasons disappear.
- B
This describes a claim in the middle of a chain: earlier claims support it, and it then supports a further conclusion. But what further conclusion does this budget recommendation establish? The argument doesn't use it that way. The other claims explain why the money should be redirected; the recommendation is where that reasoning is headed.
- CCorrect
The proposal to redirect more of the budget to prevention is what the argument as a whole supports. The opening facts describe the problem, and the later effectiveness and spending comparisons explain why a different allocation makes sense. C defines the role of the main conclusion without needing to use that label.
- D
A presupposition would be something the argument takes for granted as a basis for its reasoning. The recommendation is instead something the author tries to persuade us to accept. The claim that prevention is more effective helps support it; the recommendation doesn't serve as the starting basis for that claim.
- E
The author criticizes the current allocation of money, but the statement in question is the recommended replacement approach: devote more money to prevention. It isn't presented as an objection to another proposed plan. Focus on what this particular statement does in the argument, not simply on whether the paragraph contains criticism.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.