PrepTest 109

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Environmentalists: Space—based satellites help to intervene in environmental problems earlier, so they're great!

Author: These spacecraft damage the ozone layer badly enough that they may need to be stopped. Environmentalists ignore this.

Answer Anticipation:
Almost any time the question stem asks about reasoning for an argument that features multiple viewpoints, it's the author's reasoning that the question is asking about. The exception is when the author doesn't have a stated view—in that case, the question stem will generally tell you which view to focus on.

Here, however, the author does have a view. The Environmentalists are excited about a technology because it'll help address environmental issues earlier. However, this technology damages the environment pretty badly, yet the author finds it unsurprising ("It is no wonder") that the environmentalists ignore it. Since that's her opinion of the opposing point we need to justify that.

Why does the author believe it's unsurprising that the Environmentalists ignore this damage done by the satellites? Well it goes back to why they're excited about it—the satellites allow them to address environmental issues earlier.

The principle underlying the author's reasoning therefore is that people sometimes ignore the downsides of things they're excited about or that help them achieve their goals. Let's find an answer establishing that.

Answer Explanation:
The satellites support the activities of the Environmentalists and this is why the author isn't surprised that they ignore the objectionable consequences—the ozone damage—of these satellites. This answer justifies her reasoning so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen (Principle) questions the conclusion is key. Since you're tasked with supporting that conclusion with a principle you need to have a precise understanding of what it says. Generally that's not the hard part of the question but in this case it was. The argument seemed to be about the wisdom of using these satellites and most of the answers addressed that. However the conclusion was actually about the unsurprising nature of the opposing viewpoint's conclusion (and what it failed to consider) and only one answer dealt with that. Being very precise with an understanding of the conclusion would have allowed the correct answer here to be found very quickly—and that's a huge time—saver in a question #18.

Incorrect. The author establishes that the damage is so bad that the launching of these satellites might need to be stopped. If anything, this answer provides a possible rebuttal of the Environmentalists to the author's argument. The reasoning in the argument is also about the unsurprising nature of the Environmentalists's viewpoint, not the wisdom of using the satellite technology.

Incorrect. The author's conclusion is an opinion of the opposing point—it's unsurprising that they're ignoring a certain fact. This answer would justify an opinion on the underlying technology. Even if we look at the author's view as being that these satellites might do more harm than good (which isn't her conclusion), this answer doesn't justify that, as it doesn't establish whether these negative impacts outweigh the benefits.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the satellites make the problems they're meant to address worse. While they are really bad for the ozone layer, they may be meant to address other environmental issues—e.g., deforestation. Also, again, this answer doesn't connect to the author's main point—that a certain view isn't surprising.

Incorrect. There's no indication the ozone damage was unforeseen. Also, this answer is yet another one that fails to connect to the actual conclusion about the unsurprising nature of the opposing point's ignoring data that contradicts its view!