PrepTest 122

Incorrect. This answer is what "seems" to be true, which is the opposing point that the Essayist ends up questioning.

Incorrect. The argument never claims or suggests that treated lumber is equally dangerous indoors and outdoors, so this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point: Chemicals used on lumber to be used outside can't accumulate, so they're probably pretty safe

Editorialist: This lumber could be ingested if used:
(1) On playgrounds, since kids put everything in their mouths
(2) In gardens, since these chemical could leach into the soil and food
So we should immediately test the safety of these chemicals

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts in a common manner, but it introduces it in an interesting way. Here, there is an opposing point, but it's not introduced as what "some" people believe. Instead, it talks about what would "seem" to be true. But that phrase suggests that the author is going to disagree with that belief, and we see that here when the Editorialist pivots ("However"). And when the author pivots away from an opposing point, her opinion of that opposing point is almost always the main point of the argument.

Here, the Essayist pivots to saying despite the rational belief that chemicals used in lumber for outdoor use is safe, it should actually be tested for safety. This is an opinion that reflects disagreement with the opposing point, and it makes a recommendation—all hallmarks of a conclusion. It's also backed up by the rest of the argument, which explores two specific situations where lumber used outdoors might end up being ingested in some way by people.

Since that pivot statement is an opinion/recommendation backed up by specific situations, it's the main point of the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the Editorialist's recommendation that steps "should be taken" to test the chemicals used to treat lumber, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
"Should" statements will almost always be the main point in an argument, with the main exception being when that statement is a principle that is then applied to a specific situation to draw a conclusion about that situation.

Incorrect. The Editorialist does state that there's a potential risk associated with children putting their mouths on playground equipment made of treated wood, but this answer is broader than that (in talking about all playground equipment) while also making a recommendation not found in the stimulus. And while it might be implied that the Editorialist believes parents should stop their kids from chewing on treated wood until its safety has been proved, this answer also deals with only one of the raised examples, so it wouldn't be the main point since it misses a key portion of the stimulus.

Incorrect. The Editorialist calls for treated lumber's safety to be studied, so there's no commitment to it actually being more dangerous than believed—just the possibility that it is.