Q22

[pistachio2014]

Hi, I'm having trouble with this one. I chose A because in my opinion the last sentence answers "Which kind of habitat will experience the greatest temperature increase in an atmosphere high in CO2?"

Why is it C instead? The last paragraph of the passage states "Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels," but it didn't mention anything about the rate of plant growth predicted by experts (what answer C asks). Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Tough q, and I see why (A) was so tempting!

We're told in the argument that...
High latitude habitats, such as the tundra, are expected to experience the greatest temp increase, and
That the tundra would create more CO2...

But does that mean the tundra, or the high latitudes, must experience the greatest temperature increase in an atmosphere high in CO2? Not necessarily. His research doesn't address this issue.

Perhaps, in an atmosphere high in CO2, temp in the tundra go from 101 F to 105 F. Perhaps temperatures in Wisconsin go from 75 to 85, creating a bigger difference.

In terms of (C), you are super sharp to notice that the exact rate of global warming has not been discussed specifically -- however, it's helpful to focus on the other aspects of (C). The question (C) is essentially asking is "MUST IT BE TRUE that enhanced plant growth will DECREASE rate of global warming predicted by experts"

No matter what the experts actually predicted, his research does deal directly with the impact enhanced plant growth will have on CO2 levels, and, therefore, global warming. In this case, it's helpful to think of context. The two sentences before Billings is mentioned pose the question his research is meant to address. In fact, the rhetorical question asked at the beginning of that final paragraph matches up very nicely with (C).

Hope that helps, and please feel free to follow up if you have any follow up questions!

[sukim764]

The only reason why I crossed out C was because of lines 38-40. I thought the second paragraph addressed the issue of CO2 on plant growth, and the third paragraph was addressing CO2 on global warming. I do realize that the research itself encompasses all three aspects (CO2, plant, global warming), but I sort of see that they are inseparable. Reading comprehension is such a coin toss for me.. Blah

[agersh144]

I still don't understand C - it seems that 36-40 suggest that the experts were wrong about the lush world of agricultural abundance but global warming remain a question mark. Can someone please explain how the text supports C in a way that I can better understand for questions like this in the future?

[ohthatpatrick]

The hypothesis in the first paragraph is 2 pronged:

1. More CO2 make plants grow faster (resulting in lush world of agricultural abundance)
and
2. More plants and more vegetation means more things sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the extra plants might actually slow down the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as they suck the CO2 up.

The 2nd paragraph deals with #1. Yes, plants would grow faster, but WHICH plants? It would be weeds who would win in this world, not our agricultural plants.

Lines 36-40 are the transition from prong 1 to prong 2. The author is saying, "Okay, so we already shot down the FIRST part of the hypothesis in paragraph 2. Now let's talk about the SECOND part of the hypothesis."

Billings' research was exclusively about the SECOND part. In a warmer world, will more plants sucking up CO2 mean a slowed-down rate of CO2 being added to the atmosphere? (i.e. "the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global warming").

That's what (C) paraphrases.

To help yourself spot this in the future, reflect on how well you processed the transition sentences at the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph.

The "However" at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph essentially tells us the entire purpose of the passage ... oh, okay, our author wants to push back against the ideas in the 1st paragraph.

I actually think I was kinda confused by the end of the 2nd paragraph, but then that amazing transition sentence in 36-40 told me exactly what the author THOUGHT he had accomplished in the 2nd paragraph. I was like, "Oh, THAT's what you were proving? The lush agricultural prediction was wrong? And now you're evaluating a different prediction?"

Make sense?

[513852276]

For answer choice A, does the last sentence really belong to Billing's research? Maybe it's an extra information provided by author to comment on values of Billing's research?

Hi, I'm having trouble with this one. I chose A because in my opinion the last sentence answers "Which kind of habitat will experience the greatest temperature increase in an atmosphere high in CO2?"

Why is it C instead? The last paragraph of the passage states "Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels," but it didn't mention anything about the rate of plant growth predicted by experts (what answer C asks). Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

That's subtle, but I think you're right. The last sentence seems to me to be the author commenting on the significance of Billings' research rather than Billings reporting this last sentence as "a finding" of his actual research.

If Johnson found out that orange M&M's are more fattening than the other colors, an author might note that this has particular implications for Halloween-edition M&M's, which are exclusively brown and orange.

But that wouldn't mean that Johnson's research was intended to address anything about Halloween-edition M&M's. From what we know, the research merely wanted to answer the question, "Which color M&M is the most fattening?"