PrepTest 131, Section 1, Question 1
Editorial: Almost every year the Smithfield River floods(71 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe Smithfield River(6 more words not shown)
- BNutrients from the(9 more words not shown)
- CDamming the Smithfield(12 more words not shown)
- DFor Redhook to(11 more words not shown)
- EThe Smithfield River(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Spending $3 million to clean up the same flooding every year sounds frustrating. Why keep the town there? Perhaps the fishing brings in enough money to make that annual expense worthwhile. Before deciding how to solve the flooding, we need to consider what keeps Redhook going.
A $5 million dam initially sounds promising: spend money once and prevent the recurring floods. But a dam also changes what flows downstream. What if solving the flooding problem hurts the fishing business?
That is exactly the editorial's concern. The dam would stop nutrients from reaching the ocean, the fish that feed on them would go elsewhere, and Redhook would lose $10 million annually. Avoiding a $3 million cleanup would come with a much larger annual loss. That gives us a clear reason to understand the author's objection.
What we’re looking for
The main-conclusion question asks what all that reasoning is meant to establish. The residents propose a dam; the editorial says their proposal is misguided. The nutrient and fishing discussion explains why. Our answer should capture the rejection of the proposal.
Working the answers
- A
This is the residents' proposal, which the editorial argues against. Preventing floods is a benefit the author acknowledges, but the editorial's conclusion is that building the dam would be a mistake.
- B
The nutrients help explain why the fish would leave after construction of the dam. That is part of the support for rejecting the proposal. The editorial's main point concerns whether Redhook should build the dam, not simply what the fish need.
- C
The objection is not that $5 million is too much to spend on construction. A one-time investment could be worthwhile if it prevented repeated cleanup expenses. The editorial instead objects to the annual fishing losses the dam would cause. C gives the rejection a different reason.
- DCorrect
Saying the dam would be a mistake restates the claim that the residents' position is misguided. The loss of nutrients, departing fish, and resulting annual cost all support that judgment.
- E
The annual cleanup cost introduces the problem that prompted the proposal. It explains why residents might want a dam. It is not the editorial's conclusion about whether that solution is a good idea.
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.