#5 - Author's Perspective, Must Be True

[ksandberg]

I selected answer choice A, although the correct answer is answer choice C. I thought that A was correct because the author's only cited reason for eliminating offshore platforms is to prevent human workers from getting hurt. I thought that A addressed this perfectly, while C did not address what I thought was the author's main concern. I thought that C went out of scope based on what the author had written.

I am guessing that A is incorrect because a reduction of human labour is not enough to completely eliminate the risk of human injury, as a reduction could mean that some humans continue to work on the platform.

Any advice is much appreciated.

[AthenaDalton]

Thanks for your question!

You are right to distinguish between reducing the number of workers that work on offshore platforms and eliminating platforms altogether (thereby erasing the risk to oil platform workers). The author makes just this distinction in lines 5 through 12, implying that reducing (or even eliminating) offshore platforms would be a positive development. The author returns to the idea of eliminating offshore platforms again at the very end of the passage in his discussion of underwater pumps.

In light of this distinction, answer choice (C) is a better answer than answer choice (A), because (C) advocates for eliminating offshore platforms altogether, as opposed to merely reducing the number of people who work on them as suggested in (A).

Although much of the passage discusses ways to improve on the technology currently used in offshore platforms, the author also discusses ways to eliminate offshore platforms altogether and suggests that this is a desirable outcome.

I hope this helps! Best of luck studying.

Athena Dalton