Reading comp PrepTest 116 · Section 1 · Question 5

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

Based on the information Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the main point and information about groundwater formations and saline water formations, if necessary, to anticipate what might happen in the scenario described

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to infer, from a few details in the passage, what must be true in a novel situation, we can start by quickly finding and reviewing those details. Once we review that part of the passage, we can anticipate what might happen in the hypothetical situation described. We should consider how the hypothetical situation applies to what we reviewed and whether it might follow a similar or distinct pattern to that described in the passage.This question asks us what might happen if an oil well company drilled near a large city and encountered a large groundwater formation an da small saline water formation, but no oil.We know that groundwater contamination was the central example in the passage, so focusing on that part of the hypothetical isn’t going to narrow down what we’re looking for. So we should focus on the other part — the saline water formation.Where is saline water mentioned? Using our notes or the CTRL/Command + F search function, we can see that the author brings up saline water at the beginning of Paragraph 3. There, it’s lumped in with petroleum, and it’s referred to as “unpotable saline water reservoirs” (Lines 26-27). The author goes on to say that wells that penetrate groundwater and either oil or saline water “inevitably” lead to groundwater contamination (Lines 30-33).So, in the case from this question stem, we can tell that “without appropriate safeguards” (Lines 30-31), the saline water will contaminate the groundwater. We know that one safeguard — the metal pipe casings set in concrete — can help to prevent this contamination (Line 38), but the author argues that it’s not necessarily a long-term or complete solution (Lines 42-45). Let’s find an answer reflecting these details.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Groundwater contamination is unlikely Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this reflect the author’s belief that the saline water might contaminate the groundwater without the appropriate safeguards?

    Nope. The passage states that wells that hit both groundwater and saline will “inevitably” contaminate the groundwater without proper safeguards, so just because the well didn’t hit oil doesn’t guarantee there will be no contamination.

  2. B
    Danger to human health Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this reflect the author’s belief that the saline water might contaminate the groundwater without the appropriate safeguards?

    No. There will be groundwater contamination at this site. However, the author doesn’t discuss the danger groundwater contamination presents to human health in this passage. Still, every time the author brings up such contamination, the author characterizes it as a problem — even referring to it as a “major disaster” at one point (Line 55). Therefore, we don’t have any reason to think the danger to human health due to this groundwater contamination is “unlikely.”

  3. C
    Groundwater contamination is likely Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this reflect the author’s belief that the saline water might contaminate the groundwater without the appropriate safeguards?

    Not quite. The passage does state that wells that hit both groundwater and saline will inevitably contaminate the groundwater “without proper safeguards.” However, the passage doesn’t imply that such safeguards require plugging and abandoning the well. There might be other safeguards that this drilling company could implement (such as metal pipe casings), so this answer is too extreme.

  4. D
    Groundwater contamination is unlikely Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this reflect the author’s belief that the saline water might contaminate the groundwater without the appropriate safeguards?

    Nope. The passage states that wells that hit both groundwater and saline will inevitably contaminate the groundwater “without proper safeguards.” At no point does the passage state that sufficiently large groundwater can dilute saline water to the point where it’s safe to drink.

  5. E
    The risk of groundwater Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E)Does this reflect the author’s belief that the saline water might contaminate the groundwater without the appropriate safeguards?

    This is a tricky answer since the Author isn’t sold 100% on metal pipe casings serving as a long-term safeguard to groundwater contamination by saline water. The passage does note that contamination is inevitable without proper safeguards, and the metal casings are put forward as a safeguard that has been in use for a while, suggesting that it has some positive impact on the risk of contamination. And this answer doesn’t say that the metal casings are a complete solution — just that they reduce the risk of contamination, which there’s support for in the passage. This is especially true if the casings are routinely monitored for breakdown, as the author cites such breakdown as a reason that the casings may not be a long-term solution (corrosion/dissolution). This answer choice therefore accurately reflects the “appropriate safeguards” part of our anticipation.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 13%
  2. B 3%
  3. C 14%
  4. D 3%
  5. E Credited 68%

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