PrepTest 145, Section 2, Question 14

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  Here's another route I hadn't focused on: prevent cases arising from something other than industrial pollution. My initial thoughts concerned controlling this pollution or people's exposure to it. A asks whether a significant number of cases have other preventable causes.

  Suppose another factor causes a large number of these conditions and we can reduce people's exposure to that factor. We could then significantly reduce the overall incidence without halting the industries at all. That possibility defeats the claim that shutdown is the only effective route.

  Two details matter. The number must be significant because the conclusion concerns a significant reduction. And the other causes must be preventable, because merely identifying a cause we cannot do anything about wouldn't give us an alternative preventive approach. A supplies both details.

• B

  Harm to other species could be another serious concern. But this argument's conclusion concerns reducing cancer and birth defects in humans. Showing that the pollutants cause additional harms doesn't identify an overlooked way to reduce the human conditions at issue.

• C

  This describes assuming that several different causes can independently produce an effect. The problem goes in the opposite direction: the activist overlooks the possibility that addressing other preventable causes could reduce the overall incidence.

  The words 'different causes' may make C sound close to A, but the action matters. C says the author takes multiple causes for granted; A says the author fails to consider relevant ones. C also doesn't supply A's important connection to a significant number of preventable cases. It does not describe the actual mistake.

• D

  Voluntarily decreasing pollution isn't the same as decreasing it enough to produce the significant reduction the argument concerns. The premise says adequate compliance is unlikely, not that industries will never reduce a single pollutant. D raises the possibility of some voluntary decrease without showing an effective alternative to shutdown. A directly identifies the missing kind of significant prevention.

• E

  Undiscovered benefits of a pollutant wouldn't by themselves show another way to reduce these medical conditions. A substance could have both harmful and beneficial effects. E might complicate a broader assessment of the substance, but it doesn't address why shutting down the industries is supposedly the only effective means of prevention.