Reading comp PrepTest 109 · Section 2 · Question 18

Passage

Questions 15-22  .        Experts anticipate that global atmospheric  . concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) will have  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Some researchers' argument (more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase vegetation and slow global warming)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Experts' view:
      • The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will double by the end of the century (first sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to experts:
      • CO2 can cause global warming by trapping solar energy (second sentence)
    • Some researchers' view:
      • More CO2 will cause a chain reaction that actually fights the effects of global warming (third sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to some researchers:
      • More CO2 will cause more plants, which will cause more absorption of CO2, which will cause a lower increase of CO2 than predicted (third through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "is known" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Studies show more CO2 won't increase vegetation (more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to studies:
      • More CO2 would cause some plants to outcompete others, which could cause a reduction in some important crops like corn and sugar cane (first and second sentences)
      • More CO2 could also cause an increase in certain weeds, which could cause ecosystem instability or more severe wildfires (third through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "However" (first sentence), "important crops" (second sentence), "may lead to" (last sentence), "more severe" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Billings' study shows more CO2 won't slow global warming (more plants won't offset increased decomposition)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to Billings:
      • In wet tundra grasslands, increased temperatures will cause more CO2, which will cause increased plant growth, which causes more peat (dead plant material) to decompose, which causes a significant increase in CO2 that the increased plant growth can't offset (third through eighth sentences)
    • Author's view:
      • Billings' study is important because the tundra will experience the greatest temperature increase from global warming (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "It is clear" (first sentence), "does not guarantee" (first sentence) "particularly important" (last sentence)

Main Point: Studies suggest elevated CO2 levels will not guarantee lush agriculture or reduce global warming.

Meta-Structure?

Correcting the Record: This passage utilizes a Correcting the Record Meta-Structure.* In a Correcting the Record passage, the author will describe a common misconception or false belief. Often, this belief is based on a lack of information. The author then explains why the beliefs are false.

That's precisely how this passage progresses. The author introduces the belief that expected increases of CO2 in the atmosphere could make the world agriculturally lush and even decrease the rate of global warming. The author then corrects both of those points with new studies. According to these studies, increased CO2 will not make the world agriculturally lush (because some plants will increase more than others, reducing ecological stability and increasing the prevalence of wildfires) or slow global warming (because it will increase decomposition and release even more CO2).

In passages that use a Correcting the Record Meta-Structure, the main point will generally summarize the author's explanation of why the misconception is false or just an assertion that the misconceptions are false. We kept it simple with our summary: "Studies suggest elevated CO2 levels will not guarantee lush agriculture or reduce global warming."

Cause and effect: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is cause and effect. This isn't surprising, as this minor Meta-Structure is prevalent in science passages. Each paragraph asserts a cause-and-effect relationship. Having these noted or highlighted will help you answer the inevitable questions about these relationships.

Last Thoughts?

There's no way around it: this is a dense, science-y passage. It's made a lot more tolerable, however, by realizing that the passage's arguments are causal arguments. The author and all the researchers mentioned — they are all making arguments about certain causes leading to certain effects. The hypothesis in the first sentence says that more CO2 will cause a decrease in the rate of global warming. The author says that CO2 will really just cause agricultural issues and the release of even more CO2. If you can, try committing these relationships to memory! It'll save you a lot of time and headaches as you answer the questions!

Question prompt

The passage suggests that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review your notes to recall Patterson and Flint's views, then find an answer that must be true according to the passage

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to infer what Patterson and Flint would say about increased levels of CO2. Often, one's views are described at length throughout the passage, so reviewing the passage or anticipating what the correct answer will say is not a wise investment of our limited time. However, in this case, the reference to Patterson and Flint is quite brief, so it's worth taking a moment to see what the passage says about them.Where does the passage discuss Patterson and Flint's beliefs? Our notes do not mention them, so we may have to resort to using the CTRL/Command + F search function. That will point us to the second paragraph. There, we'll be reminded that they think that higher CO2 levels will mean that "important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds" (P2, S3). Since this is the outcome of their research, it's probably fair to assume that they agree with this claim. We can also infer that they think weeds will experience a greater increase in performance than the crops do. After all, if the crops and the weeds were given an equal boost, the weeds wouldn't be getting an edge, and the two would stay balanced as they are now.With this information in hand, we can now go on to the answer choices. We'll eliminate each one we know is wrong (for instance, if we know it contradicts their views) and table any choice that includes a detail we don't remember reading.

Answer choices

  1. A
    They will not increase Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Based on what we reviewed, can we infer that Patterson and Flint would agree with this?

    We don't know. Patterson and Flint's research compares agricultural crops to weeds. We inferred that they believe the weeds would get a bigger bump in growth performance. But without knowing the relative number of the two types of plants, it's impossible to stay if most plants will grow faster. Plus, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that expresses a high degree of certainty ("will not"). This language is difficult to support and thus unlikely to show up in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. For these reasons, we should eliminate — or at least table — (A) and move on to the next answer choice.

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for this answer choice if we re-read the entire passage. Patterson and Flint never make a statement about "most plants."

  2. B
    They will inhibit the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Based on what we reviewed, can we infer that Patterson and Flint would agree with this?

    We don't know. They believe that some important crops (corn and sugarcane) would be inhibited, but is that "most crops"? Who knows. There are a lot of different types of crops out there. Plus, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that expresses a high degree of certainty ("will"). This language is difficult to support and thus unlikely to show up in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. For these reasons, we should eliminate — or at least table — (B) and move on to the next answer choice.

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for this answer choice if we re-read the entire passage. Patterson and Flint never make a statement about "most crops" — only "important crops" (P2, S3).

  3. C
    They are unlikely to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Based on what we reviewed, can we infer that Patterson and Flint would agree with this?

    We don't know. We didn't anticipate anything about plants with "lower photosynthetic efficiencies." For this reason, we can table (C) without checking the passage and check whether (D) or (E) can be inferred from what we already reviewed.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (C), we would be reminded that Patterson and Flint argue that crops with "higher photosynthetic efficiencies," like corn and sugar cane, will lose their edge when CO2 levels are increased (P2, S2). This suggests that a CO2-rich atmosphere will increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies — otherwise, they couldn't make up ground on the plants with higher photosynthetic efficiencies! So Patterson and Flint would probably disagree with this answer choice.

  4. D
    They will increase the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Based on what we reviewed, can we infer that Patterson and Flint would agree with this?

    Yes! We saw that they think more CO2 would increase the growth rate of weeds more than crops. That's enough to support (D), which has the soft, easy-to-support language ("certain") we like in a Must Be True question! We can select (D) and move on to the next question.

  5. E
    They will not affect Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Based on what we reviewed, can we infer that Patterson and Flint would agree with this?

    Not necessarily. We didn't anticipate anything about plants with "higher photosynthetic efficiencies." Plus, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that expresses a high degree of certainty ("will not"). This language is difficult to support and thus unlikely to show up in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. For these reasons, we should eliminate — or at least table — (E) and review any answer choices we haven't already eliminated.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (E), we would be reminded that Patterson and Flint argue that crops with "higher photosynthetic efficiencies," like corn and sugar cane, will lose their edge when CO2 levels are increased (P2, S2). But this doesn't mean that corn and sugar cane will not experience an increased growth rate! Perhaps they only get a little bump when compared to the weeds. (E) is out.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 5%
  2. B 13%
  3. C 3%
  4. D Credited 77%
  5. E 2%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.