#20 - Industrial engineer: Some people have suggested that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (C)

The industrial engineer begins with two pieces of background information:

1. Some suggest global warming be addressed by pumping carbon dioxide into the ocean.
2. Many environmentalists are concerned that this “solution” is equally destructive.

These first two points are simply facts—there are such suggestions, and there are such concerns. In the third sentence, an assertion is presented—this is the author’s conclusion: “This worry (referenced above) is unfounded.” This is a good prephrase of the main point, which is based upon the premise presented at the end of the paragraph: since much environmental carbon dioxide ends up in the ocean anyway, the suggested solution is not as destructive as global warming.

Answer choice (C) is the correct answer choice, as it reflects the prephrase from our discussion above. Basically, the referenced environmentalist worries are unfounded. This is the author’s Main Point.

Answer choice (A) is not necessarily accurate; the fact that “some people” have suggested such a plan does not mean that the plan would actually work.

Answer choice (B) describes one of the background facts presented by the engineer, and answer choice (D) describes one of the supporting premises of the argument.

Answer choice (E) does not represent the main point of the stimulus, which is simply that one particular environmentalist concern (that of possibly trading one type of pollution for another) is unfounded.

[pacer]

I am wondering that if this was an inference question, would it be correct to say that choice E is right?

In this stimulus, the author presents two opposing views and refutes the second one. Can we state that the author is implying (infer) that pumping CO2 into the oceans as a measure for reducing global warming is not a bad idea?

I can see that choice C tells us about the author's view, which is more in line with a conclusion.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi pacer,

I'd say answer choices (B) and (D) can properly be called inferences given the information in the stimulus, but - as you know - they don't express the main point of the passage. The latter is summarized in the beginning of the third sentence ("This worry is unfounded, however..."). As far as answer choice (E) is concerned, I'm afraid this is not an inference but a principle ("To reduce global warming, the strategy [...] should be considered." This recommendation is vaguely supported by the information in the stimulus, but it is not something we can definitively prove. Just because the environmentalists' worry is unfounded doesn't mean that we should go ahead with this strategy. Even if the author might agree with this, answer choice (E) falls somewhat outside the scope of the argument, and - as you mentioned yourself - does not capture the conclusion.

Hope this helps!

[pacer]

Is the conclusion the same as the author's view?

When reading the stimulus, I had marked the sentence relevant to choice C as the author's view.

Since the question was asking for a conclusion, I was confused between choice C and E and ended up picking E thinking that C is just the author's view on the matter and not the overall conclusion of the argument.

[Nikki Siclunov]

The stimulus is structured as follows:

• Argument (1) some people: We can address global warming by pumping carbon dioxide into the ocean.
  
  Counterargument (2) environmentalists: This "solution" would simply exchange one form of pollution for another.
  
  Author's Conclusion: The environmentalists' worry is unfounded.
  
  Author's Premise: The carbon dioxide eventually ends up in the ocean anyway, where it does not cause environmental disturbances as destructive as global warming.

The last sentence supports the view that the environmentalists' worry is unfounded, making it a premise for the main conclusion of the argument. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (C).

Answer choice (A) expresses the views of "some people," which is not necessarily the author's view.

Answer choice (B) states a fact, namely, that the environmentalists worry about the effects of the proposed solution. The main point is not that they worry, but that their worry is unfounded.

Answer choice (C) is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D) outlines the main premise for the author's conclusion.

Answer choice (E) is attractive, but incorrect. As outlined above, it is not an inference but rather a principle ("To reduce global warming, the strategy [...] should be considered." This recommendation is vaguely supported by the information in the stimulus, but it is not something we can definitively prove. Just because the environmentalists' worry is unfounded doesn't mean that we should go ahead with this strategy. Even if the author might agree with this, answer choice (E) falls somewhat outside the scope of the argument, and does not capture the conclusion.

[lathlee]

Hello.
I had three possible answer choice contenders as the final answers a, c, e. but chose E) as you know the correct answer is c)

but i don't get why C is the correct answer as in of summarizeing the whole argument.

cuz it sounded as industrial designer is trying to drive the argument into not just explaining which form is unfounded and ineffective, but trying to convince us into certain direction, his conclusion. secondly, i chose e) for another reason: the engineer defeated prmise 2, many environmental's argument, in order to proceed his own conclusion thus suggesting the first premise, some people belive pupming some of the carbon dioxide to deep ocean argument, has a persuasive merit .

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi lathlee,

The stimulus is structured as follows:

• Argument (1) some people: We can address global warming by pumping carbon dioxide into the ocean.
  
  Counterargument (2) environmentalists: This "solution" would simply exchange one form of pollution for another.
  
  Author's Conclusion: The environmentalists' worry is unfounded.
  
  Author's Premise: The carbon dioxide eventually ends up in the ocean anyway, where it does not cause environmental disturbances as destructive as global warming.

The last sentence supports the view that the environmentalists' worry is unfounded, making it a premise for the main conclusion of the argument. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (C).

Answer choice (A) expresses the views of "some people," which is not necessarily the author's view.

Answer choice (B) states a fact, namely, that the environmentalists worry about the effects of the proposed solution. The main point is not that they worry, but that their worry is unfounded.

Answer choice (C) is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D) outlines the main premise for the author's conclusion.

Answer choice (E) is attractive, but incorrect. While this principle ("To reduce global warming, the strategy [...] should be considered") is vaguely supported by the information in the stimulus, it is not something we can definitively prove. Just because the environmentalists' worry is unfounded doesn't mean that we should go ahead with this strategy. Even if the author might agree with this, answer choice (E) falls somewhat outside the scope of the argument, and does not capture the conclusion.

Main Point questions require precision: identify precisely the claim that is supported by the rest of the argument, but that does not support any other claims. This is the conclusion - nothing more, nothing less

Hope this helps!

Thanks,