The main point is that they should examine arguments being made before a policy decision (A)? The only support for that is one sentence in paragraph one and its a conditional saying that if good policy decision are to be made then arguments need to be considered. Isn't that just prelude for the rest of the passage. I didn't leave the passage saying "oh that was a really strong point about why policy makers should consider both sides". Where is the support for this point throughout the passage?
I ruled it out immediately because it was obviously too vague and minor a detail.
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q1
Question Type:
Main Idea
Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Line 7 - 12 looks the most to be the Main Point. It appears in the most typical place Main Point sentences appear: after a "but/yet/however/recently" pivot in the first paragraph. And the following sentence is definitely a framing idea that the rest of the passage falls underneath, since it tells us that we will be analyzing two claims, which is all the rest of the passage does. The author makes a couple subsidiary conclusions at lines 24-26 and 41-43.
Any prephrase?
The author seems to want to Clarify two Misconceptions: people think forests are super important to oxygen generation on Earth, but in reality they're pretty much oxygen-neutral. People think rapid deforestation is threatening biodiversity, but in reality it only affects 3% of forests and actually allows the remaining 97% to fully engage in biodiversity.
Correct answer:
A
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Maybe (and ultimately yes). It's a great lock for line 7-12, which is the umbrella claim that the rest of the passage falls underneath. It seems very vague, given that the author seems to have these two pretty specific misconceptions he's attacking.
(B) "Insignificant" seems too strong. More broadly, this answer only focuses on the 2nd claim. It doesn't address the "oxygen neutral" part of the passage at all.
(C) This is also too narrow, focusing only on the 2nd of the two claims.
(D) "primary" is too strong. This also is nowhere close to the AUTHOR's main point. In paragraph 3, where this language comes from, the author is reciting other people's arguments/sentiments.
(E) The main character of the passage was not "biodiversity", and that's all this answer choice is about. This is also too narrow.
Takeaway/Pattern: The only answer that even resembled "forests aren't as important to oxygen as you think, and deforestation isn't threatening biodiversity as much as you think" is (A). It doesn't convey either of those ideas, but both of those ideas are a fleshing-out of the idea in (A).
(B), (C), and (E) are only addressing the 2nd of the author's two big arguments. (D) isn't addressing either of them.
#officialexplanation
Main Idea
Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Line 7 - 12 looks the most to be the Main Point. It appears in the most typical place Main Point sentences appear: after a "but/yet/however/recently" pivot in the first paragraph. And the following sentence is definitely a framing idea that the rest of the passage falls underneath, since it tells us that we will be analyzing two claims, which is all the rest of the passage does. The author makes a couple subsidiary conclusions at lines 24-26 and 41-43.
Any prephrase?
The author seems to want to Clarify two Misconceptions: people think forests are super important to oxygen generation on Earth, but in reality they're pretty much oxygen-neutral. People think rapid deforestation is threatening biodiversity, but in reality it only affects 3% of forests and actually allows the remaining 97% to fully engage in biodiversity.
Correct answer:
A
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Maybe (and ultimately yes). It's a great lock for line 7-12, which is the umbrella claim that the rest of the passage falls underneath. It seems very vague, given that the author seems to have these two pretty specific misconceptions he's attacking.
(B) "Insignificant" seems too strong. More broadly, this answer only focuses on the 2nd claim. It doesn't address the "oxygen neutral" part of the passage at all.
(C) This is also too narrow, focusing only on the 2nd of the two claims.
(D) "primary" is too strong. This also is nowhere close to the AUTHOR's main point. In paragraph 3, where this language comes from, the author is reciting other people's arguments/sentiments.
(E) The main character of the passage was not "biodiversity", and that's all this answer choice is about. This is also too narrow.
Takeaway/Pattern: The only answer that even resembled "forests aren't as important to oxygen as you think, and deforestation isn't threatening biodiversity as much as you think" is (A). It doesn't convey either of those ideas, but both of those ideas are a fleshing-out of the idea in (A).
(B), (C), and (E) are only addressing the 2nd of the author's two big arguments. (D) isn't addressing either of them.
#officialexplanation
-
- GolddiggerF208
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 23
- Joined: July 27th, 2021
Re: Q1
My two cents in addition to Patrick's note:
C is incorrect because it mentions "official statistics" which merely appear to address the commercial plantation issue and has nothing to do with deforestation. More, the deforestation matter includes both issues of oxygen-renewing and biodiversity preservation, which I would reserve my different understanding from Patrick.
C is incorrect because it mentions "official statistics" which merely appear to address the commercial plantation issue and has nothing to do with deforestation. More, the deforestation matter includes both issues of oxygen-renewing and biodiversity preservation, which I would reserve my different understanding from Patrick.
3 posts Page 1 of 1