Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 3 · Question 3

Incorrect. This answer might highlight why it might be important to preserve the environment there, but it doesn't strengthen the argument that the modern drilling methods being used to drill there will damage the environment.

Incorrect. The debate is over whether the drilling will damage the environment, not whether the oil company executives lied about it. This answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The beliefs of the Editorialist won't establish whether or not there will actually be damage to the environment if drilling occurs at the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð Legislation might allow drilling in a Nature Preserve
Supporters Ð Modern methods will be used, so the environment will be fine
Editorial Ð Alphin Bay had drilling start 5 years ago and its environment is wasted, so the Supporters are wrong

Answer Anticipation:
The Editorial here relies on comparing the situation at Cape Simmons to the one at Alphin Bay to reach its conclusion. That comparison relies on the two being similar—that what happened in Alphin Bay will also happen in Cape Simmons. As such, any relevant similarities between the two situations will strengthen the argument.

While that would be enough of an anticipation to feel comfortable heading to the answer choices with, we can take this a step further. The Supporters of the drilling plan specifically note that the reason they believe there won't be environmental damage is because modern drilling methods will be used. Therefore, the Editorial's argument would be most strengthened by addressing this detail, and so the correct answer is likely to establish that these same methods were used in Alphin Bay.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the "modern" methods to be used at Cape Simmons are likely the same used at Alphin Bay since there haven't been any advances in the intervening years. If that's the case, then a relevant similarity has been established between the two locations, and it's more likely that what happened in Alphin Bay will also happen in Cape Simmons, strengthening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that rely on similarities are generally strengthened by relevant similarities.

Incorrect. First, it's not established if these other industrial activities also take place in Cape Simmons. Second, assuming for a second that they aren't, then this answer would highlight a relevant difference that suggests a separate reason for the environmental damage in Alphin Bay, weakening the argument.