PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 1
Economist: Prosperity is a driving force behind increases(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- ACarbon dioxide is(6 more words not shown)
- BProsperity is an(10 more words not shown)
- CWhen incomes rise,(7 more words not shown)
- DCountries that experienced(11 more words not shown)
- EWhen people spend(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More money can mean more energy use. If people can afford cars and other energy-consuming devices, I can see why rising incomes might lead to more carbon dioxide emissions. That explains the opening claim; it isn't a separate point the economist leaves unsupported.
The recession evidence then approaches the relationship from the other direction: countries whose economies shrank sharply also saw steep declines in emissions. Both pieces support the idea that prosperity drives emissions upward. A very wealthy country might use unusually clean technology, but that possible exception wouldn't by itself defeat the more general claim that prosperity is a driving force.
What we’re looking for
For the main-conclusion question, ask why the economist tells us about purchases and recessions. Those facts are meant to support the first claim about prosperity increasing carbon dioxide emissions. The comment about global warming explains why the emissions matter. The argument doesn't go on to explain how carbon dioxide warms the planet, so that isn't the claim these reasons are trying to establish.
Working the answers
- A
This appears in the opening sentence, but it isn't the claim the economist goes on to support. We get an explanation of how prosperity increases emissions, not an explanation of how carbon dioxide warms the planet. A picks a stated fact with the wrong role.
- BCorrect
This captures the point supported by the rest of the passage: prosperity helps cause increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Calling prosperity an 'important cause' fairly restates calling it 'a driving force.' We don't need identical wording when the relationship and the strength of the claim are preserved.
- C
This is one step in the economist's explanation. Higher incomes allow more people to buy energy-consuming devices, which helps explain why prosperity raises emissions. C supplies a reason to believe the conclusion rather than the conclusion itself.
- D
The recession evidence supports the claim about prosperity and emissions. It shows the two falling together in some countries. The economist uses that observation to support the broader claim; the observation isn't the overall point.
- E
This supplies the next step after C: spending on the devices leads to more carbon dioxide. Together, those steps connect rising incomes to rising emissions. E gives part of that connection, not the conclusion about prosperity.
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.