Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 4 · Question 5

Incorrect. (Lines 7-15) The Author is primarily concerned with bringing up what needs to be considered in order to make policy proposals, but she never makes any policy proposals herself. Therefore, she can't be said to be primarily concerned with "making policy proposals."

Incorrect. (Lines 7-15; Lines 30-35) Similar to (A), the Author never puts forward any solutions to the situation at hand. And when she brings up scientists, they point out why the problem should be solved, but it's never established that they have any solutions for them.

Incorrect. (Lines 7-15) The economic resource here is the forest. While the Author does discuss that the forest could be exploited to provide the basis for medicinal research, she also discusses a moral obligation to preserve the forest and a reason not to (oxygen generation). That reason to preserve the forest isn't noted as new, though, and in fact is attributed to another group.

Incorrect. (Lines 7-15; Lines 47-50; Lines 50-56) The Author doesn't come out on the side of putting forward particularly stringent regulations on deforestation, let alone focus on "mobilizing" public support for those policies. In fact, she brings up that one area being attacked—plantations—aren't as damaging as those calling for regulations suggest!

Correct. Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Strategy Overview:
Restate the Main Point (both our anticipated one and the correct answer to question #1), and then head straight to the answers

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
This Methods of Reasoning question is asking us about how the Author presents her argument overall. Since it's asking about what she's "primarily concerned with," it's going to tie how she makes her argument into what that argument is.

Here, lines 7-15 showed us the Author's primary concern—discussing two important claims that need to be analyzed when figuring out forest preservation policy. She brings up reasons that are good reasons for doing so (preserving medicines; moral reasons) and ones that she believes aren't (oxygen generation; ending commercial plantations). Let's find an answer that reflects her bringing up these topics while not fully resolving the question, instead taking stances on the reasoning for both sides of the debate.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 7-15; Throughout) The Author starts by stating that different claims/arguments need to be analyzed in order to make good policy, and she then digs into some of those views. She compares those who talk about oxygen generation (which she says isn't a reason for preservation), scientists who talk about medicinal research (reason for preservation), those who make a moral argument (reason for preservation), and those who speak out against plantations (which she implies isn't a good reason for preservation). Since she's presenting views that cut in both directions, this answer about "counterbalancing different points of view" is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When the Author doesn't fully resolve the question at the heart of a debate in a passage, expect answers close to this one on the big-picture questions! This passage wasn't about resolving a question—it was about highlighting the various viewpoints on it.