Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 4 · Question 12

Incorrect. The author believes that Environmentalists "would be" wrong to react to an extinction in a specific way, but that doesn't mean that they're actually doing so. Additionally, the conclusion is that it'd be wrong to blame pollution for all extinctions—being wrong about the cause of something isn't the same as overreacting.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Environmentalists: The loss of an "indicator species" shows that pollution is threatening an environment and the species in it

Author's opinion: If Environmentalists think all cases of extinction are the fault of pollution, they'd be misguided
Author's support: It could just be the natural evolution of the ecosystem, which is just as likely the cause of an extinction

Answer Anticipation:
When there's an opposing point in an argument, the author's opinion of it is usually the main point.

Here, the argument starts by raising the argument made by Environmentalists. The author then pivots ("yet") to an opinion of that view—if the Environmentalists apply their argument to "all" cases, then they'd be misguided.

She then moves on to support that by raising an alternative explanation to the one provided in the Enviromentalists's argument, supporting that their argument doesn't apply in all cases.

Since that pivot statement is an opinion of an opposing point that is supported with a premise, it's the main point of the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the author's disagreement with the opposing point. The Environmentalists argue that pollution is causing extinctions. The author believes that if they apply this explanation to all cases, they'd be wrong. That's another way of saying that the loss of a species shouldn't always be seen as a sign of pollution/environmental degradation.

Key Takeaway:
The author's opinion of an opposing point is usually the main point of an argument. When you see an opposing point and a pivot, be sure to understand the author's opinion of that viewpoint, as it's almost certainly going to be relevant to the correct answer.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is about what "would be" true if the Environmentalists behave in a certain way. It doesn't state that they're actually doing so. Additionally, the author seems to have a problem only with Environmentalists applying the connection of indicator species, extinction, and pollution to all cases—implying that there are some cases where she'd agree the connection exists.

Incorrect. First, the stimulus never states that extinctions "should not be resisted." Second, the first half of this answer served as support for the conclusion that there are some extinctions that aren't caused by pollution.

Incorrect. The argument states that some cases of extinction aren't caused by pollution but rather are caused by the natural evolution of an ecosystem. This answer conflates two separate explanations for extinction.