Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 4 · Question 17

Incorrect. Arguably, you could view the first statement as an intermediate conclusion. However, if it is an intermediate conclusion, it's backed up by the explanation of how rainwater runoff pollutes waterways, not that final statement.

Incorrect. If anything, it is a claim that pollution from rainwater is more serious than that from industrial discharge, it's not support for that claim. (Though that claim isn't even really made in the stimulus, which is itself enough reason to rule this answer out.)

Incorrect. First, the opening statement isn't exactly a generalization, in that it talks about "many cities" instead of cities generally. Second, even if it is a generalization, it's not exactly based on the second statement since it's about the same content as it (not more general content) and, as we noted in our anticipation, it brings in wholly new information about industrial discharge, so it must be a premise itself. While we noted that this statement skirts the line between premise and intermediate conclusion, there's enough slightly off with this answer to rule it out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
In cities, rain brings pollutants to lakes/rivers, exceeding industrial discharge, so water is actually one of the biggest water polluters

Answer Anticipation:
The first statements in the stimulus—the statement the question is asking about—is a measurable fact, and thus it is likely a premise. The second statement explains how water can serve as a means for pollution to make it into these waterways, but it stops short of supporting the first sentence since it doesn't address industrial discharge. It's a premise, and it skirts the line of supporting the first statement, which is arguably an intermediate conclusion with this second statement as support, but since that's unclear because of our note before, let's wait to see if that shows up in the answers.

This all leads straight into the main point of the argument—that last sentence, which is indicated as the conclusion with that "Thus" at the start. Both earlier statements discuss water as a source of water pollution, so they're both premises for this conclusion.

So the statement in question is a premise in support of the conclusion. And we need to look out for something about an intermediate conclusion, then make a call on it based on how the answers are phrased.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is a straightforward description of the role of the statement in question and, since intermediate conclusions are premises (as well as conclusions), we don't even have to worry about or resolve that issue.

Key Takeaway:
On Argument Structure questions—especially ones with flawed arguments—there are sometimes close calls on whether something counts as an intermediate conclusion or not. When that happens, don't obsess over that determination until you run into two answer choices that make it relevant. Most of the time, that won't happen.

And remember—intermediate conclusions are properly categorized as both a premise and conclusion, so the answer can call it either!

Incorrect. The opening statement isn't an example of pollution—it's a comparison between two types of pollution that supports the comparative ("among the biggest") conclusion.