Reading comp PrepTest 158 · Section 1 · Question 2

Do you recall reading about how safe "the use of landfill and incinerators" is? Probably not. An efficient test-taker would probably table or eliminate this answer choice and move on to the next one.

If we decided we needed to review the passage for any mention of "the use of landfill and incinerators," we could use the CTRL/Command+F function to find the only reference to landfills and incinerators. This reference appears in the first paragraph. The author doesn't say that landfills and incinerators are no longer considered safe. Instead, the author just says that they are subject to increased regulations and expenses (P1, S2). Therefore, (A) is not supported.

Do you recall reading about how safe or expensive it is to inject wastes at 1,800 meters versus 300 meters? Possibly. If you cannot recall whether this claim is supported, we can consider whether it is consistent with the main point. The main point asserted that deep-well injection is dangerous. The claim that injecting waste at more than 1,800 meters is "more dangerous" than at 300 meters is consistent with that main point, so this answer choice may bear closer scrutiny.

Checking the passage for the reference to 1,800 meters (whether by scanning the text for this number or using the CTRL/Command+F search function) would lead us to the sixth and seventh sentences of the first paragraph. In those lines, the author says that injecting waste at less than 300 meters is more dangerous than injecting waste at more than 300 meters. The author also says that injecting waste more than 1,800 meters underground isn't cost-effective. So, this answer choice gets the facts backward. It is less dangerous but more expensive to deposit waste at 1,800. So, checking the passage confirms that this answer choice is not correct.

Question Type:
Minor Point/Must Be True

Strategy Overview:
Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem provides no indication as to the topic of the correct answer or where it'll show up in the passage. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar, we shouldn't check the passage to see if it was mentioned. Instead, we'll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar and consistent with the main point, we'll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be true. If you can find that text, select that answer choice and move on.

Answer Choice Explanation:
Do you recall reading about whether hazardous waste can contaminate water that is very far from the deep-well injection site? Probably, since this was the general idea put forth by the third paragraph. If you cannot recall whether this claim is supported, we can consider whether it is consistent with the main point. The main point asserted that deep-well injection is dangerous due to mechanical failure, human errors, and the unpredictable flow of underground water. This answer choice is consistent with that main point — particularly the part about the unpredictable flow of underground water. Therefore, this answer choice warrants a closer look, even if we didn’t remember reading about this specific idea.

We can use our notes or what we highlighted/underlined to find the support in the third paragraph. There, the author says that underground water can sometimes "be transported thousands of meters per year through geologic faults, porous rock, or other geologic formations" (P3, S3). "Thousands of meters" would certainly qualify as a "great distance." Therefore, this part of the passage supports the possibility that deep-well injection can contaminate drinking waters great distances from the injection site. Plus, this answer choice features the weak, easy-to-support language ("can contaminate") so often found in the correct answer of Must Be True questions. We can select this one confidence. We could even be justified in moving on to the next question without reading the remaining answer choices.

Key Takeaway:
On Must Be True questions, when an answer choice brings up a topic that we do not recall reading about, there's no immediate benefit to re-reading the passage to see if we missed that topic. We usually don't recall these topics because these topics simply did not appear in the passage. It's a much better use of our limited time to defer or eliminate that answer choice and look at the rest.

Do you recall reading about the risks of disposing of hazardous waste in "landfills"? Probably not. Assuming they didn't already select (C) and move on, an expedient test-taker would probably table or eliminate this answer choice and move on to the next one.

If we decided we needed to review the passage for any mention of disposing of hazardous waste in "landfills," we could use the CTRL/Command+F function to find the only reference to landfills. This reference appears in the first paragraph. The author doesn't say that landfills involve risks or that landfills cannot contaminate groundwater. Instead, the author just says that landfills are subject to increased regulations and expenses (P1, S2). Therefore, (D) is not supported.

Do you recall reading about "drinking-water wells"? Probably not. Assuming they didn't already select (C) and move on, an experienced test-taker would likely table or eliminate this answer choice and move on to the next one.

If we decided we needed to review the passage for any mention of "drinking-water wells," we could use the CTRL/Command+F function to search for "well" or "drinking water." Doing so would confirm that no reference to "welsl" ever mentions that the well was drilled to provide access to "drinking water." Further, it would confirm that no reference to "drinking water" ever specifies that the water came from a well. Therefore, we can conclude that "drinking-water wells" are not mentioned in this passage, and the passage provides no textual support for (E).