Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 1 · Question 18

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
While policies driven by environmentalists have increased forestation and decreased pollution, these successes suggest that ecological doom isn't imminent and we should allow the use of natural resources to create wealth that can allow countries to act sustainably.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot of presenting of viewpoints here—the Columnist, the environmentalists, and the anti-doomsayers—so it's important to keep them straight.

The structure of the argument tells us that that very long last clause is the main point ("Though . . . it nonetheless . . . " being an indicator of an opposing point and a main point). This comes out of the reforestation and pollution reductions, which does support the view that imminent ecological doom might be overstating the current situation.

From there, it digs further into this viewpoint, bringing up things that aren't related to the current state of affairs—mainly, that certain environmental measures may dry up resources needed to implement green policies. That comes out of nowhere, and so it's likely the correct answer will strengthen this part of the viewpoint. Anything that mentions the economics of natural resources or the funding of environmental policies would be in scope and should be considered.

Answer Explanation:
This answer discusses the economics of natural resources—mainly, that they are an important source of wealth for nations. Since the viewpoint mentioned in the conclusion relies on the exploitation of natural resources being necessary to implement green policies, this answer strengthens the reasoning by stating that those resources are, in fact, an important funding source for nations.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument features several viewpoints, it's important to distinguish between them so you can figure out what the question is asking you to address.

Incorrect. Advanced technology and social programs are both out of scope of this argument about environmental policies.

Incorrect. The ecological doom and problems that have been addressed in the stimulus are largely ones that have been driven by human action, so others that are out of human control are out of scope.

Incorrect. What would have happened in a different universe will rarely impact an argument about what actually happened.

Incorrect. The argument is about the ability to fund green programs by exploiting natural resources, so this answer, in a way, reverses that connection.