#12 - Professor Shanaz: People generally notice and are concerned about

[Jeff Wren]

Complete Question Explanation

Method-AP. The correct answer choice is (B).

This question asks what role the claim in the first sentence in the stimulus plays in the argument.

The argument gives three separate, independent premises that are just taken as given (i.e. they are not supported or proven by other statements.)

Premise 1: People generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious health problems.

Premise 2: There is indisputable evidence that ozone, an air pollutant, can be dangerous for severe asthmatics even if found in levels much lower than maximum levels permitted by law. (The assumption, or unstated premise, here is that ozone at these levels would not be considered an obvious or widespread problem as it affects severe asthmatics rather than the general population.)

Premise 3: Most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community.

Based on these premises,

The conclusion is: There is unlikely to be a widespread, grassroots effort for new, more restrictive air pollution controls at this time.

Our prephrase is that the first sentence is a premise (i.e. a statement that is used to support the conclusion.)

Answer choice (A): This answer starts off great! The claim that we're being asked about is a premise. The problem is the second half of the answer. The first sentence is not offered in support of the claim that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to the community than ozone. The two premises are separate and independent. These "half right, half wrong" answers are common in Method -AP questions.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Our prephrase was that the first sentence (the claim that we're being asked about) is a premise offered in support of the conclusion. Answer B states that it is a premise offered in support of the claim that "there is unlikely to be a widespread, grassroots effort for new, more restrictive air pollution controls at this time" (which is the conclusion). Answer B perfectly describes the role of the first sentence.

Answer choice (C): This answer can be tricky. While the fact that people generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious health problems MAY help explain the current public awareness of the severity of the problem of contaminated water if we assume that the contaminated water is among the most obvious health problems, that is not WHY the first sentence is in the argument. The first sentence helps explain, along with the other two premises, why widespread efforts to restrict air pollution are unlikely (the conclusion).

Answer choice (D): The first sentence is not presented as evidence that ozone can be dangerous for severe asthmatics. The two premises are separate and independent.

Answer choice (E): The first sentence is a premise. It is definitely not the main conclusion of the argument, which appears in the last sentence of the stimulus.

[mkarimi73]

Two questions on this one: 1) Can the first sentence of the stimulus be considered an intermediate conclusion, since there is evidence provided to illustrate the claim? Or, is it more of a general statement that does not act as an intermediate conclusion? Either way, it is a premise, correct? 2) Is (C) wrong because of the term "severity"? Thanks.

[Robert Carroll]

mkarimi73,

The first sentence has no evidence for it. Nothing in the stimulus is intended to show that it's true. The conclusion is the last sentence, so that certainly isn't intended as evidence for it. Further, the second sentence isn't even regarded by the professor as evidence for the first - the fact that people are more aware of one threat than another doesn't show that they'll only notice and be concerned with the most obvious public health problems. So the first sentence is not an intermediate conclusion.

Answer choice (C) is wrong because the claim about contaminated water doesn't have any evidence for it either, including the first sentence.

Robert Carroll

[CristinaCP]

I interpreted this argument as a generalization, followed by an example of that generalization, and then the conclusion. But doesn't the generalization partly explain the example? Most people are aware of the problem of contaminated water because people generally notice and are concerned about the most obvious public health problems (which implies that water is an obvious public health problem). That's why I thought both B and C could be right. Where am I going wrong in my approach?

[Chandler H]

I interpreted this argument as a generalization, followed by an example of that generalization, and then the conclusion. But doesn't the generalization partly explain the example? Most people are aware of the problem of contaminated water because people generally notice and are concerned about the most obvious public health problems (which implies that water is an obvious public health problem). That's why I thought both B and C could be right. Where am I going wrong in my approach?

Hi Cristina,

Good question! I think the first issue is that the structure of the argument is not quite what you described. It begins with an assertion ("People generally notice...") for which no proof is provided. Because no proof is provided, we know that the first sentence is a premise. However, I wouldn't say that the second sentence ("Although... community") is an example of the phenomenon of people generally being concerned about only the most public health problems.

Very simplified, the second sentence just says "Most people are aware that contaminated water poses a more widespread threat than ozone levels." This is not an example of people being concerned about only the most public health problems; it's simply a statement that most people know contaminated water is more dangerous. This is another premise.

The conclusion ("... unlikely to be a widespread effort for ozone control") ties those two premises together.

Does that answer your question?

[CristinaCP]

Yes, that was helpful! Thanks for clarifying.