PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 20
Industrial engineer: Some people have suggested that the(77 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AGlobal warming from(22 more words not shown)
- BEnvironmentalists worry that(26 more words not shown)
- CWorrying that pumping(24 more words not shown)
- DMuch of the(24 more words not shown)
- ETo reduce global(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The environmentalists aren't simply saying that carbon dioxide is bad. Their worry is that pumping it into the deep ocean could exchange one form of pollution for another that is equally destructive.
The engineer calls that worry unfounded. Why? Much of the carbon dioxide released into the air eventually reaches the ocean anyway, and the engineer says its effects there aren't as destructive as global warming.
I would still want to know whether deliberately pumping carbon dioxide deep into the ocean has the same effects as letting it arrive through the processes that already occur. Could the way or location in which it enters matter? That is a question about whether the supporting comparison works, not a reason to lose track of what the engineer is trying to establish.
What we’re looking for
The task is to identify the conclusion. The point the evidence supports is that the environmentalists' particular worry is unfounded. We can identify that conclusion while still questioning the engineer's reasoning for it.
Working the answers
- A
This describes the potential benefit behind the proposed strategy. The passage introduces that proposal as something people have suggested, then turns to a worry about its consequences. The engineer's main point is the rejection of that worry, which A leaves out.
- B
This reports the environmentalists' position. The engineer responds to that position by arguing that it is unfounded. Giving the position being challenged doesn't state the engineer's conclusion about it.
- CCorrect
This spells out what 'this worry is unfounded' means: the concern that the proposed strategy replaces global warming with equally destructive pollution lacks a basis. That is the claim the observation about carbon dioxide already reaching the ocean is intended to support.
- D
This is the supporting observation. The engineer uses the existing movement of carbon dioxide into the ocean and its comparatively less destructive effects to reject the environmentalists' worry. D supplies the reason, not the conclusion drawn from it.
- E
This recommends considering the strategy. The engineer's argument may make the strategy seem more worth considering, but that isn't the stated main conclusion. Rejecting one concern about a proposal is different from issuing this recommendation, and it doesn't settle every other possible consideration about the proposal.
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.