Reading comp PrepTest 116 · Section 1 · Question 4

Passage

Questions 1-5  .        The accumulation of scientific knowledge  . regarding the environmental impact of oil well  . drilling in Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Generalization/Problem; example previewed
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author’s view on generalization/problem:
      • Science lags behind oil drilling, so undesirable events happen before regulation
    • Example of problem:
      • Groundwater contamination
    • Author’s attitude: “relied on hindsight” (line 5); “undesirable events” (line 7); “problems” (line 7)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Groundwater example: Early examples of regulations
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Example of problem with oil drilling:
      • Beginning of commercial drilling (~1893) - Regulations protected oil from groundwater, not other way around
      • This led to the contamination of drinking-water wells
    • Author’s attitude: “no thought was given” (line 18)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Groundwater example: Cause of problem; attempts at solution
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison:
      • Groundwater at shallower depth than oil/saline water
    • Cause-and-effect relationship:
      • Groundwater connected to oil and salt water, causing them to mix
    • Comparison of attempted solutions:
      • Sealing off groundwater — started with hollow trees, now with metal tubes with cement

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Problems with that solution
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author’s view:
      • Lack of knowledge means there might be problems
    • Examples of potential problems, according to the author:
      • Barriers may corrode, cement may dissolve; effects of bacteria/vibrations/chemistry are unknown
      • West Coast oil well had poor understanding of local geology and contaminated sea (caused international uproar)

Main Point: Attempts to regulate the oil industry are largely based on hindsight because so much of the science involved is still unknown, a problem illustrated by the issues associated with groundwater contamination by oil wells.

Key Lines?

Lines 4-7 - A generalization of problems present in an industry is presented

Line 18-22 - An example illustrating the generalization is described

Lines 28-33 - The cause of the problem in the example is described

Lines 38-41 - The author introduces an attempted solution (still in use)

Lines 45-52 - Examples of potential problems with the solution

Meta-Structure?

Generalization/Example: That this passage uses the Generalization/Example Meta-Structure becomes apparent with the last few words of Paragraph 1: “[Groundwater problems] provide a case in point.” That ending to the first paragraph tells us that the author is going to explore this one example to illustrate the generalization that they just made. This structure is reinforced as we read through the rest of the passage and see that the author doesn’t stray from a discussion of this example. When this Meta-Structure is present, the generalization is the main point, and the correct main point answer usually (but not always) references the specific example highlighted. So, here, the main point should reflect the author’s generalization that attempts to regulate the problems associated with the oil industry rely too heavily on hindsight, which is a major problem for this regulation. This leads us to our second primary Meta-Structure ...

Examples: Outside of the example that illustrates the author’s main point/generalization, the passage itself presents several examples of smaller points. Paragraph 2 presents a specific example of oil wells contaminating groundwater. Lines 45-52 provide examples of potential problems that could arise from an attempt to solve groundwater contamination that we don’t know enough about. And Line 55 introduces an example of regulations failing to protect groundwater. These are all potential sources of information for a question or two, so we should have them highlighted/underlined or noted.

Last Thoughts?

Many test-takers might conclude that this passage utilizes a Problem/Solution Meta-Structure, so let’s discuss that. The author does present a general problem — regulating the oil industry, which is difficult because the science lags behind the actual drilling of wells (Lines 1-7). The author then dives into a specific problem — groundwater contamination (Lines 7-10). Normally, when this Meta-Structure is present, the author’s solution is the main point. However, there’s a wrinkle here! The author doesn’t present a solution to the overall problem — only an attempted solution to the example problem. In Paragraph 3, the author talks about how the industry has tried to prevent groundwater contamination. The author isn’t sold on it being a complete or permanent solution (Lines 44-45), and this specific attempted solution doesn’t speak to a solution to the overall problem of the science lagging behind the practice of drilling oil wells. Becuase the author only discusses a solution to the “example” problem and not the “general” problem, we think the entire passage is better understood as a Generalization/Example passage, rather than a Problem/Solution passage. At any rate,, the main point shouldn’t include the author’s feelings on the solution for the “example” problem. The main point should reflect the author’s argument that the “general” problem doesn’t currently have a solution.

While we don’t think this passage uses a traditional Problem/Solution Meta-Structure, reflecting on how the problem and solution interact with the Generalization/Example Meta-Structure helps us appreciate the nuance in this passage. The author presents a general problem before discussing a specific example of it and a solution to that specific example. So, it’s important to know that the “example” solution isn’t a part of the main point of the passage — especially because the author doesn’t believe it’s a complete or permanent solution.

Question prompt

The author uses the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the purpose of the paragraph, including Line 44, then use that and the immediate context to define what risks the Author’s referring to

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us what “hazards” the phrase “the hazards of insufficient knowledge” referred to in Line 44. However, Line 44 doesn’t tell us what is causing that risk — just that the risk persists.Luckily, the passage follows up that line with a “For example,” telling us that we’re going to get an example of those hazards. And, in fact, we get quite a few examples — long-term stability, corrosion, cement dissolution, bacteria, traffic vibrations, changing chemistry, and poor understanding of subsurface geology. The author claims that these risks persist, so let’s find an answer that brings one (or a combination) of them up.

Answer choices

  1. A
    a lack of understanding Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this reference any of the risks the author enumerates in Paragraph 4?

    Nope. The author never says we don’t know much about the health effects of groundwater contamination.

  2. B
    a failure to comprehend Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this reference any of the risks the author enumerates in Paragraph 4?

    Yes! The specific example in the author’s list of examples from Paragraph 4 — the west coast disaster — involved a failure to understand the area’s subsurface geology. Since this is an example of the type of insufficient knowledge that persists, this answer is correct.

  3. C
    poorly tested methods for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this reference any of the risks the author enumerates in Paragraph 4?

    Nope. The passage never mentions testing newly developed technologies, so this answer is unsupported.

  4. D
    an inadequate appreciation for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this reference any of the risks the author enumerates in Paragraph 4?

    Not exactly. In Paragraph 4, the author suggests that regulations may fail becuase we lack sufficient knowledge about a variety of factors. However, the author never suggests that it’s difficult to enact or enforce regulations. In other words, rather than bemoaning how difficult it is to pass regulations or get drilling companies to follow the regulations, the author criticizes the content of the regulations themselves.

  5. E
    a rudimentary understanding of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this reference any of the risks the author enumerates in Paragraph 4?

    Not quite. But this is a tempting answer, as the passage lists many risks surrounding these casings. Specifically, the author mentions how corrosion and vibrations affect these casing. However, the “unknowns” in those cases aren’t the metal casings, but rather the fluids from the oil wells and traffic vibrations. In other words, the materials used to make the pipes are understood, but what they’ll be exposed to isn’t.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 8%
  2. B Credited 47%
  3. C 18%
  4. D 2%
  5. E 25%

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