PrepTest 110

Incorrect. The Editorialist doesn't mention that any progress has been made, just that to make progress, fear is necessary. As such, this answer that talks about what progress "has been" made is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Radical environmentalists make ridiculous arguments, but the population needs to be afraid of environmental disaster to make progress, so these environmentalists have a part to play.

Answer Anticipation:
The Editorialist pivots ("But") to an opinion of a certain group. When the argument pivots to an opinion it's almost always the main point. In this case that's backed up by the pivot statement being followed by "for" which is a premise indicator word that says the following statement supports the preceding statement.

So the main point here is that radical environmentalists have a positive role to be played in the environmental policy discussion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer might read a little more positive than you may have expected, but it certainly matches the Editorialist's conclusion. She does categorize acting on environmental issues as progres, and concludes that Environmentalists play a role in this progress even when making their "false" and "infeasible" arguments. As such she concludes that in making these arguments Radical Environmentalists are progressing environmental issues so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
The correct answer in a Main Point question doesn't need to parrot the main point word—for—word—it just has to convey the same idea. Don't eliminate an answer just because it uses different words—only eliminate it if it conveys different ideas.

Incorrect. There are a few shifts in this answer. First, the stimulus raises fear as a necessary factor to progress, not the "most effective[]" factor. Second the stimulus limits itself to discussing the inertia behind current environmental policy not all policies so this answer is broader than the argument.

Incorrect. The Editorialist doesn't discuss the motive behind putting forward these arguments, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Editorialist believes that the Environmentalists put forward infeasible and false proposals, but they could believe that their positions are true and feasible, so they may not be doing so "without regard" for factual support and feasibility.