Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 4 · Question 1

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the Main Point that we thought of after reading through the passage

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
When we read through the passage, we saw that the end of the first paragraph outlined what the author was going to discuss in the rest of the passage ("Two claims . . . merit special scrutiny") in order to explore a question—what should forest preservation policy say? That left it open as to whether the Author was going to stake out a specific position on policy. However, she never did, instead discussing the two claims that needed special scrutiny without resolving the question of how they should decide policy, so the main point reflects the need to study these claims rather than what they say about policy. Let's find an answer that reflects that point.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 7-15) This answer reflects the main point as stated at the end of the first paragraph. The Author states that arguments for and against the economic use of forests need to be understood to make "well-grounded" policy decisions. She then goes on to discuss two of these claims specifically, but she never speaks to the specifics of how this analysis would impact policy. As such, the view that the claims need to be understood and scrutinized is the main point rather than any view on specific policies, making this the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an Author leads into a discussion by stating that something needs to be analyzed before a decision can be made, you might expect her to dive into those considerations and make a decision. However, it's possible that the point of the passage is to lay out these considerations rather than resolve them. Don't read a resolution into a passage where one doesn't exist!

Incorrect. This answer doesn't discuss the first of the two claims made (oxygen-depletion), and it takes a stance on stricter regulations, which the Author never does.

Incorrect. (Lines 41-43) This answer reflects the last paragraph, not the argument as a whole. It's missing the discussion of oxygen-depletion, and it doesn't speak about policy decisions at all. As such, this is more of a premise/intermediate conclusion than a main point.

Incorrect. (Lines 30-33; Lines 35-39) The Author does discuss preserving forests to yield new medicines, and preserving them as noninstrumental goods. However, this answer reflects only paragraph 3, not the whole of the argument. On top of that, the third paragraph never ranks these two reasons as primary and secondary, so this answer misses the mark for that reason, as well.

Incorrect. (Lines 41-44) The Author does imply that she doesn't think such regulations on plantations will help much, since they make up only 3% of forest area and they allow other forests to be preserved. However, that's reflective of only paragraph 4, and she doesn't predicate that on biodiversity being an instrumental good.