#10 - Charlene: Environmental cleanup increasingly relies on

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (B)

This rather unique Must Be True stimulus has Charlene and Olaf arguing over whether the activity of microorganisms metabolizing pollutants does indeed vary based upon temperature fluctuations. Charlene’s argument is that utilizing these microorganisms has its limitations because they become less active when temperature in a given region drops below the normal temperature. Olaf attempts to counter this by comparing the activity of microorganisms in two separate regions with drastic temperature differences (arctic versus subtropical), and noting that their activity is roughly equivalent.

Since the question stem asks you to identify what in Charlene’s argument Olaf misunderstands, it is important to see how Olaf’s argument differs from Charlene’s (obviously the differences in their arguments will be based on his misunderstanding). The most notable difference is that Charlene is discussing temperature variation within a single region, whereas Olaf is concerned with the disparity in temperature of two separate regions. So what has he misunderstood? Since Charlene’s argument is about microorganism activity when a region’s temperature drops below “normal,” it seems that Olaf fails to recognize that she means “normal for a single, geographical place,” as opposed to temperature differences that can exist in geographically isolated environments. Charlene would likely respond to Olaf by saying that microorganisms in both the Arctic and subtropical regions would be less active if the temperature in those individual regions fell below the level that was “normal” for those regions.

Answer choice (A): Olaf does not argue about whether environmental cleanup “relies” on microorganisms, but rather on how these microorganisms are affected by temperature variation.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, Olaf understands “normal” to mean a constant (or universal) temperature across regions, instead of “normal for an individual region.”

Answer choice (C): Both Charlene and Olaf seem to understand “cleanup” to mean using microorganisms to metabolize pollutants.

Answer choice (D): Olaf understands that Charlene uses “limitations” to mean that there are restrictions to the potential overall usefulness of using microorganisms for metabolizing pollutants, and then argues that these limitations do not exist. The misunderstanding is over the evidence Charlene uses to support her point about limitations (that temperature in a region falling below a normal level reduces microbial activity).

Answer choice (E): Both Charlene and Olaf agree on the meaning of the word “active” (as in, how quickly the microbes metabolize pollutants/eat oil), but differ about whether temperature can affect that activity. Charlene says that within a region temperature can have an effect; Olaf misunderstands her point and argues about temperature differences in separate regions.

[CChen13]

Hi, I was looking at the other questions in Lesson 1, not the homework section. I don't understand why question 9 on page 1-13 is B instead of E. Since the microorganisms can't work in a temperature that "drops below normal," doesn't the climate in the Arctic that Olaf cites meet that condition? Charlene never says anything about temperatures above normal, so there's nothing there for Olaf to misinterpret.

[Jason Schultz]

Hi CChen13, welcome to the board!

Where Olaf went wrong is in interpreting the word "normal" to apply to all of planet Earth as opposed to normal for the specific region. Note that he tries to refute Charlene's point by comparing Arctic microbes to those in "subtropical regions." However, even though the subtropics are warmer overall, each of those areas are presumably within their own definition of "normal."

"Normal" is a tricky word in that it's always relative to its context.

Does that help?

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I think I am writing this in the correct section, but can't be sure. If I am wrong please correct me. Nevertheless, I was looking for insight for question 9. After reading the passage, I couldn't recognize the word Olaf misinterpreted. The answer is B Normal. However, I don't how to get to answer B. My assumption at this point is that the Charlene doesn't state was is normal or not normal so with Olaf focusing on the different temperatures with a constant CD output then he is misinterpreting the word. Thank you.

- Micah

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Micah, and it looks like you put it in the right place here in the Forum.

There are probably a few approaches you could take with this question. The first one starts right where we start with every LR question, and that's with attacking the stimulus. Read with an open and skeptical mind and carry on an inner dialogue as you read. Is there an argument present? What's the conclusion? Is the argument good or bad? When you see one speaker responding to another speaker, do you think the second speaker understood what the first one said and responded appropriately? Reading this question this way, looking for problems and ready to pounce on them, you might quickly find yourself reacting to Olaf and defending Charlene, perhaps saying "but that's not what she meant!" What did she mean? She meant normal for the region, not "globally average" the way he seems to be using it. That should help get you to the right answer, quickly and confidently.

That won't always happen, though, right? Sometimes, try as we might, we find that the stimulus doesn't give us much of a reaction, and we don't see what others see so easily. What next? Read the question stem and see what it tells you about your task. Here, they are telling you as plain as day that Olaf misinterpreted a word in Charlene's argument. Now, taking what you know of the stimulus, can you scan back over it and find some word that Charlene used in one way and Olaf used in another? You're still trying to prephrase now, not relying on the answer choices. For this question, you might have to ask yourself "how did Charlene interpret this or that word, and did Olaf use it the same way?" Again, you may soon recognize that "normal" is being misconstrued by Olaf, and you can again quickly and confidently pick that answer.

Last resort, our least favorite given how tricky the test authors can be - go answer by answer and ask yourself whether one of them works better than the others. One of them has to be it! So, starting at answer A, what does Charlene mean by "relies"? Did Olaf's argument interpret it in some way other than the way Charlene apparently meant it? No? Then move on to B, and then to C, and so on. This question works a lot like a Point at Issue question, discussed later in the course, in that you are looking for the answer that you can clearly see, based on what was in the stimulus and nothing else, that one of them thought of the word in a certain way and the other thought it meant something else entirely. If you cannot label those two meanings - "she meant regional, he meant global" - then you cannot pick that answer choice.

This also resembles a rare Flaw in the Reasoning question that talks about "vague" or "uncertain" or "shifting" use of a term or phrase. Most commonly seen as a wrong answer on those Flaw questions, sometimes that's the real problem, as it is here for Olaf - he has allowed the meaning of normal to change just enough to make his response inadequate to impact Charlene's claim.

I hope that helps! Take these LR questions a step at a time, and as you build your skill set you'll find that they come together more and more easily and quickly. Good luck!

[mpoulson]

Makes Perfect Sense. Thank you.

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore!

Do you have any suggestions on other questions similar to this? I found myself struggling with this type of question. Would reviewing Point at Issue questions be similar? I found this slightly different since it's a point at issue and a MBT.

Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, lunsandy! I have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is there aren't really any other questions quite like this one to draw on for further practice. Specifically, I cannot find any other examples of a question that not only tells you exactly what category of flaw the second speaker has made (vague,shifting, or uncertain use of a term), but that crosses the boundaries between question types in such an interesting way. Is it a Must Be True? Sort of, because we can say for certain, based on the stimulus, that Olaf definitely misinterpreted a particular word. Is it a Point at Issue? Sort of, because we are trying to figure out where the disconnect is between them, but not exactly, because we aren't trying to determine what they disagree about, just what they didn't see in quite the same way. Is it a Flaw in the Reasoning question? Well, the authors did tell us that Olaf made that "incorrect use of a term" flaw, but they aren't asking us to figure out what the flaw is, just which term he messed up, so again, not really.

So what's the good news? The good news is the same as the bad news - there aren't many (any?) others quite like this one! That means you are unlikely to see something like it on your test, and if it continues to cause you trouble you can rest easy in the knowledge that such a question almost certainly won't prevent you from getting your target score.

By all means, review Point at Issue questions, and Flaw in the Reasoning questions, and Must Be True questions, and all the other types too! There have been occasional oddball question stems that could arguably be interpreted as either Assumption or Justify the Conclusion, for example, and I have seen at least one that could conceivably be treated as a Must Be True OR as a Strengthen, but these weird hybrid stems are the exception rather than the rule and are best dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Focus on what the stem asks of you, and do that, without regard to what specific label you might put on it, and you won't go wrong. If you come across specific questions that you are struggling with, please come back here and share your thoughts so that we might help you with them!

Thanks again, and keep at it, lunsandy!