PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 7
Editorialist: There would seem to be little hazard(73 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe chemicals used(10 more words not shown)
- BTreated lumber is(11 more words not shown)
- CThe effects on(10 more words not shown)
- DParents should not(9 more words not shown)
- ETreated lumber is(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being outside might keep fumes from building up. Does that settle every way these chemicals could reach a person?
Think about chemicals remaining in the wood. A child could put their mouth on playground equipment made from it. Chemicals from a garden border could also enter the soil where vegetables grow. Fresh air doesn't, by itself, answer either concern. Those are the possible routes the editorialist points to after describing the reassuring argument about fumes.
That gives us a reason to investigate. It doesn't yet prove the chemicals are dangerous: perhaps the amounts people could ingest are harmless. The author wants us to determine their safety, which means the answer is still open.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for the main conclusion. Follow what the examples support. Why mention children and gardens? To explain why we should take immediate steps to find out whether these chemicals are safe. That's the recommendation the rest of the argument is building toward.
Working the answers
- A
This is the reassuring impression the editorialist starts with, then qualifies. The author explains why the absence of accumulated fumes doesn't settle the safety question. Calling the chemicals apparently harmless misses the recommendation to investigate other possible exposure.
- B
We haven't compared how dangerous the lumber is indoors and outdoors. It could be less dangerous outdoors and still warrant investigation because people might swallow the chemicals. B adds a claim of equal danger that the author never makes.
- CCorrect
Studying the effects on humans captures the proposed steps to determine whether the chemicals are safe. The wording changes, but the action and purpose remain: investigate the chemicals' safety for people. The playground and garden examples explain why that study is needed.
- D
The child putting their mouth on the wood is an example of possible exposure. The editorialist uses it to support a study of the chemicals, not to issue a rule for parents. This answer changes an example supporting the recommendation into a different recommendation.
- E
Possibly dangerous isn't the same as proven more dangerous than people believed. The editorialist identifies ways consumers could ingest the chemicals and asks us to investigate their safety. That investigation might confirm a danger, or it might show that the exposure is harmless. E announces a result before the proposed investigation has established it.
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.