#11 - Australia has considerably fewer species of

[jgabalski]

Can someone help me identify the main conclusion of this stimuli? I chose answer choice B because I think I was thrown by the use of "thus", and consequently identified the last sentence to be the conclusion. I do understand why C is a good answer. The stimulus references Australia and its is lack of mammals. I think I am just trying to understand the structure of the stimulus more here. Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, JGabalski,

This is a difficult Main Point question!

There are few indicator words, and the passage is structured in such a way that the conclusion appears neither at the beginning nor at the end.

When faced with a difficult-to-parse stimulus such as this, my first recommendation is just to read through it once at a normal pace and ask yourself, "So what? What's this guy trying to say?"

Before you start selecting sentences and testing whether they work as conclusions, try to paraphrase what you consider the main point. Sometimes with this thought in mind, you will be better able to engage with the stimulus to isolate the conclusion, should it be explicit.

With this in mind, now let's take a look at the stimulus itself, sentence by sentence. First statement: fact or opinion? Clearly a fact. Anything backing it up? No. We have just ruled out the first statement as the conclusion.

Second statement: fact or opinion? Still a fact. Anything backing it up? Well, maybe. The author does say "probably." Further, notice the causal phrase "consequence of" in the middle of the sentence. "This is probably a consequence of..."

What is "this?" Let's get back to it in a sec and check out the third statement. The first part of the third sentence (before the semicolon) is also a fact, which also is not backed up by anything else. Definitely not the conclusion.

After the semicolon, we have the word "thus," a conclusion indicator word. What follows "thus" in this fourth statement is also a fact that is backed up by what precedes the semicolon.

However, now we must ask, "Is this the main conclusion?"

Is the fact that "carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is relatively little food" really what this guy is driving at? Does this lead us anywhere else. Good thing we set aside the second statement for a second. Combine this fourth statement with the second statement.

To recap, when we replace the "this" in the second statement with what it refers to we end up with something like this:

• (2) "The fact that Australia has relatively few carnivorous mammals vs carnivorous reptiles is probably due to ecosystem sparseness."

For the fourth statement, we have:

• (4) "Carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is relatively little food."

Now, does (4) support (2); does (2) support (4); or is there no relation between (4) and (2)?

This is where you have to come in to observe that (4) in fact does support (2). Thus, you can use (2) as your prephrase and get the right answer.

A couple points:

1. Don't stress. There will be some more difficult questions like this. If you are dealing with a Main Point question, expect to be challenged in finding the actual main point. Expect possible deceptive wording. Engage with the stimulus holistically first.
2. When you have a candidate, make sure it passes both criteria to be a conclusion: backed up by evidence, doesn't back anything else up.

I hope this helps!

[Kdup]

Hi .. For this answer, I selected answer E. I narrowed it down between C and E... But, I selected E because it succinctly talked about what the author said and "C" sounded a little wordy. I feel as though I am able to get down between two answers.Could you explain what's wrong with answer "E? But, it's the language, coupled with a tense test environment that sometimes makes these questions challenging to go through.

[Matt Griffiths]

(E) is a tempting answer, Kdup. As Jonathan explained above, to find the main point (main conclusion) we need to look for a statement that all other statements are trying to support. (E) contains elements of both the 2nd and 4th sentences, and on the surface looks pretty good. But is it really expressing the same point as the stimulus?

The stimulus explains that the sparseness of Australian ecosystems is probably why Australia has fewer species of carnivorous mammals. You could summarize this as "Probably because Australian ecosystems are sparse, Australia has fewer species of carnivorous mammals than other continents."

Paraphrasing (E), on the other hand, we have "Because Australia's ecosystems are sparse, carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage." That is subtly different from the stimulus. The stimulus is trying to explain why there are fewer species of mammals, not why they are disadvantaged. Being disadvantaged is an explanation for sparseness, not the other way around.

Note that answer choice (E) also leaves out the keyword "probably" when mentioning the sparseness of the ecosystems. Choice (C) has it.

Remember that the question is not asking for which answer choice most succinctly expresses the main conclusion, it asks for what most accurately expresses it. Wordy answers can still be right answers!

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore Staff,

I discounted answer choice E because it lacked the word "probably," which (C) had. Is this a sufficient reason to get rid of an answer choice?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

It's a great reason to get rid of it, Deck! If you had prephrased the Main Point as that "probably" claim, then the correct answer has to include that concept of probability rather than certainty or mere possibility. Easy peasy! Nice job.