PrepTest 129

Incorrect. This answer is the conclusion of "[s]ome people. While the Industrial Engineer and those people may be aligned, the Industrial Engineer's argument comments on what the Environmentalists say instead of just weighing in on that solution.

Incorrect. The IE's conclusion isn't that Environmentalists have a fear, but rather that the fear is unfounded.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Some people: Fix global warming by pumping CO2 into the ocean.

Environmentalists: That just shifts where the pollution is, but it's just as bad.

Industrial Engineer: Most of the CO2 released currently ends up in the ocean, so the worry of the environmentalists is "unfounded."

Answer Anticipation:
Three viewpoints in one stimulus! While rare, it does happen, and just as when there are only two viewpoints, you should be sure to track them all.

Here, there's the viewpoint of "some people," who propose a solution to global warming. Then, there's the viewpoint of the Environmentalists, who take issue with that solution. Finally, there's the Industrial Engineer—the author of the stimulus. She believes that the Environmentalists's worries are "unfounded," and we know that the author's opinion of an opposing point is usually the main point of the argument. Here, since the rest of the stimulus presents the science that explains why their fear is unfounded, that's backed up.

So we should look for an answer stating that the Environmentalists's fear is unfounded. The answer might phrase it to include the fear itself (that pumping CO2 into the ocean is bad), or what it means for that fear to be "unfounded" (it's not based in reality or fact), so let's stay a little flexible to these possibilities.

And also, let's make sure that we don't select an answer that reflects the conclusion of one of the two other viewpoints! Those are common trap answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer correctly characterizes the Environmentalists's fear and states, directly, that it's unfounded. As the opinion of the IE on an opposing viewpoint, supported by the science she discusses, this is the main point of the argument and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
No matter how many viewpoints there are, be sure to track them, distinguish between them, and identify which statements in the stimulus are being made by each one.

Incorrect. This is all science, and scientific facts are very unlikely to be anything other than premises. Here, these facts are used to debunk the fears of the Environmentalists.

Incorrect. This is a weaker version of the recommendation by "[s]ome people," so this answer is wrong for the same reason as (A). The IE's conclusion is about the fears of the Environmentalists, not the proposed solution.