PrepTest 119

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Baumgartner only looked at car production when comparing gas-powered and electric cars, but production, use, and recycling are all relevant, so his comparison is misleading.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features two viewpoints—Baumgartner's, and the author's. If an argument features an opposing point, the author's opinion of that viewpoint is almost always the main point of the argument. Here, the author says that Baumgartner's comparison between electric and gas-powered cars is misleading, so we should know that that's likely to be the main point as soon as we read it.

Afterwards, the argument goes into why it's misleading—it only looks at some of the relevant information. That supports the author's view that Baumgartner's argument is misleading, so it's a premise. The argument then cites some statistics about the two types of cars, comparing them on some metrics—and statistics will essentially always be support for a conclusion.

Nothing should have made us second-guess our initial determination of what the main point is, so let's find an answer reflecting the author's opinion that the opposing viewpoint is being misleading.

Answer Explanation:
This answer paraphrases the author's opinion of Baumgartner's argument—that it makes a deceptive/misleading comparison between the two types of cars. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
An author's opinion of an opposing point will almost always be the main point of an argument where one shows up.

Incorrect. This answer is bringing up the statistics that were used to support the main point, so it's a premise.

Incorrect. The author doesn't claim that Baumgartner's data is inaccurate, but rather that it's incomplete—he didn't look at all the relevant data.

Incorrect. This answer is what Baumgartner should have done but didn't, thus supporting the view that his argument is misleading.

Incorrect. Baumgartner focused on just the impact of production on the environment, but the author wanted to expand that to include use and recycling, as well. So even if this answer were stated in the argument (it's not), it wouldn't have the same scope as the argument. It also doesn't reflect the author's opinion that Baumgartner's argument is misleading, so it misses the mark on that front, as well.