#11 - Although large cities are generally more polluted

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (E)

The conclusion in this argument can be difficult to find, because there is no conclusion indicator, though there is an explicit indicator for the argument’s subconclusion.

The argument begins with a general rule, that large cities generally are more polluted than the countryside. Despite this generality, the author concludes that an increase in urbanization could actually lessen the total amount of pollution when viewed at the national level. Here is a breakdown of the entire argument:

• Premise: large cities are generally more polluted than the countryside
  
  Premise: but, residents of large cities usually rely more on mass transportation and live in smaller, more energy efficient dwellings than do people in rural areas
  
  Subconclusion: thus, a given number of people will produce less pollution if concentrated in a large city than if dispersed among many small towns
  
  Conclusion: so, increasing urbanization may actually reduce the total amount of pollution generated nationwide

The question stem identifies this as a Method of Reasoning—Argument Part question. We are asked to describe the role played by the portion of the argument identified in the question stem, italicized above. Our prephrase is that this statement is the argument’s conclusion.

Answer choice (A): The statement is the conclusion, and so is not offered in support of any other part of the argument. Also, the conclusion to the argument does not state that people should live in large cities.

Answer choice (B): Although the conclusion at first seems contradictory to the general rule that opens the stimulus, these statements are not in conflict. The rule is focused on pollution in and around large cities, while the conclusion deals with pollution on a national level.

Answer choice (C): The conclusion is the culmination of the argument, and is not offered to introduce some other part of the argument.

Answer choice (D): The statement at issue is the conclusion, and not a premise. Also, this answer choice improperly identifies a premise of the argument as its conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, because it rightly identifies the statement as the conclusion, which the rest of the argument is designed to establish.

[ChicaRosa]

I was stuck between A and E and I ended up choose the wrong answer choice A and I don't understand why E is correct? Is E saying that the statement is the main conclusion?

I realize that I struggle a lot with "Which role does this statement play in this argument?" question type especially when trying to distinguish the conclusion from a sub-conclusion. Any tips?

Thank you!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi ChicaRosa,

Great question. Yep, E is essentially saying that it is the main conclusion/the point the passage was written to establish. When approaching this type of question, diagramming the stimulus before reading the answer choices is critical; that way, you can have a solid pre-phrase going in. Distinguishing between conclusions and sub-conclusions is definitely tricky. Remember that a sub-conclusion kind of functions both as a conclusion (of the earlier premises) and a premise (of the ultimate conclusion). Ask yourself which parts of the stimulus rely on other parts, start with what you are sure are premises, and work from there. You might also ask yourself, "What does the author want me to take away from this? What is he trying to convince me of that made him write this passage?" The answer will be the conclusion.

[mguitard]

I was struggling between B and E in this question. Ultimately, I chose B, but still don't quite understand why B is wrong and E is right.

Maybe it's study fatigue, but would you mind further explaining why E is stronger than B? Is it because B states that there is a contradiction in the statement when there is not one?

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi mguitard!

Answer choice (B) states that "the claim that increasing urbanization may actually reduce the total amount of pollution generated nationwide" is offered to call into question the statement "that large cities are generally more polluted than the countryside." But the author does not call that statement into question. The author states that "Although large cities are generally more polluted than the countryside, increasing urbanization may actually reduce the total amount of pollution generated nationwide." The author is not saying that large cities are not more polluted than the countryside. The author is saying that, though large cities are more polluted than the countryside, urbanization may reduce the overall amount of pollution generated nationwide. The author is saying that both of these things are true, not that one calls the other into question.

Usually when an author presents a claim that they are going to call into question, they preface it with something along the lines of "some people say/claim/propose/argue" or "it has been claimed/proposed/argued." The author will generally indicate somehow that the claim they are arguing against is what some other people may believe. "Although" is like "even though." It's basically indicating that though this one thing is true, this other thing is also true.

As answer choice (E) describes, the claim that "increasing urbanization may actually reduce the total amount of pollution generated nationwide" is the main conclusion of the argument. Everything that follows is a premise to explain why increasing urbanization might reduce overall pollution.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey