Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 2 · Question 1

Incorrect. The relevant comparison is between the gas-fired plant today and the waste-to-energy plant today. Comparing those gas-fired plants to old gas-fired plants doesn't work to explain the environmentalists's support for a waste-to-energy plant.

Incorrect. While this might explain why a strong case could be made for the waste-to-energy plant, it doesn't explain why the environmentalists are on board.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
A new plant is needed. There are two options—a gas-fired plant, or a waste-to-energy plant that's both an incinerator and power plant. The latter pollutes 3x as much as the former, but environmentalists are universally in favor of it.

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem asks us to justify the environmentalists' position, but the stimulus is more of a Paradox question than a Strengthen one—there's no argument, and instead the situation seems paradoxical. Why would environmentalists support an option that generates more pollution?

The only thing that makes sense is that the waste-to-energy plant has some impact on pollution other than the pollution that it produces. The stimulus even hints at what that may be—this type of plant serves as an incinerator, so maybe going with this option lets an incinerator be shut down, netting a reduction in pollution.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a separate environmental benefit to the waste-to-energy plant that the gas-fired plant wouldn't have. If building the waste-to-energy plant shuts down an incinerator that pollutes more than the plant does, then the shift is a net positive as it reduces pollution for the incinerator and solves the energy needs for the city.

Key Takeaway:
When two things are compared in a stimulus, the comparison is often incomplete. Here, while the two types of plants were compared on pollution produced, the environmentalists' position was about net pollution. As such, other indirect impacts on pollution would need to be compared between the plants to get a full accounting of their net effect.

Incorrect. If this is the case, then why are they supporting the plant that produces about three times as much air pollution as an alternative?

Incorrect. While the plants may not pollute as much as vehicles, they're still a source of pollution and environmentalists would presumably want to minimize that pollution.