Q4

[rbolden]

Hello,

For question # 4, can you please explain what type of incorrect answer choice C. is (Interpretation, Scope or Degree)? I choose C based on lines 45-49. I am unable to figure out why C is incorrect.

For the B, which is the correct answer choice, I can see the support coming from lines 53-56. But, I do not understand why this is a better answer choice than C.

Thanks for your explanation!

[giladedelman]

Good question! Answer (C) is out of scope because the passage doesn't talk about "poorly tested methods for verifying the safety of newly developed technologies." Wouldn't you agree? The author is warning about the risks posed by a lack of understanding, not by faulty safety-testing methods. The problem, according to the author, is that people don't even recognize the safety risks until after they occur.

Does that answer your question?

[kdeclark]

I'm not sure why E isn't the answer. The author says "the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example..." and then goes on to say that the "protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well..." etc.

If we had a better understanding of the casing, we could avoid these hazards (perhaps by using something else). Obviously B applies to this situation also, given how broad it is.

I'm finding I have this problem in ID questions--I'm looking for evidence right around the quote. Is this not the way to do it? Or am I just not understanding the evidence properly?

[giladedelman]

(E) is out because it's talking about a rudimentary understanding of the materials. Nowhere does the passage suggest that we don't a "rudimentary," that is, basic, understanding of the materials. It's just suggesting that we may have insufficient knowledge of the effects of various environmental factors on these structures.

In general, you do want to look to the lines mentioned, but don't limit yourself too much; you have to put the lines in the broader context of the paragraph or the passage.

[Shiggins]

I'm having trouble with how A is not the answer. The example given right after discusses groundwater,and after that on line 50 "it says the effects of ground water... are likewise unassessed.

[geverett]

Still having a hard time with B. Would love to hear more thoughts on this question in general.

[giladedelman]

(A) is not the answer because the "insufficient knowledge" is about whether these methods of protecting groundwater will work -- NOT about what the effects of contaminated groundwater are on people's health. The "effects" mentioned are the effects of things upon the stability of this system.

(B) is correct because the point is, sure, we have regulations in place, but we really don't know how all these other geologic factors are going to influence the long-term viability of our system.

[mcrittell]

Is the answer B because it refers to what the main passage was about, "scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling"? (ln 1-3)

What other clues are closer to the text that would point to B being the correct answer? Is the example in the last paragraph meant to show how "a major disaster recently occurred because a well's location was based on a poor understanding of the area's subsurface geology". (ln 55-8)

[nbayar1212]

I think within the wider context of the passage, B makes sense because it mentions "failure to comprehend possible consequences" which basically means we don't understand what problems COULD potentially happen which is exactly the author's point in the first paragraph when he or she mentions "hindsight" regulation.

After the first paragraph we get an example of regulation that came about in hindsight i.e. making sure water is not contaminated.

Then the last paragraph tells us that "the hazards of insufficient knowledge PERSIST" with respect to what kind of casing can be used when trying to stop water contamination. Given that persists means that it continues to be a problem, we know that the fourth paragraph reference is another example of problems that we couldn't predict which is why it makes sense that the phrase in question refers our failure to understand what the possible problems associated with our drilling practices will be.

[greenapples]

I read this passage after going through the RC book.

P1: regulation -> undesirable events already occured; example is the oil well's potential contamination of groundwater.
P2: Details on the example-- an old reg focused on the possibility of groundwater contaminating oil! Only after drinking water wells began to produce oil contaminated, did people worry.
P2: Scientific details (quick notation on the solution towards the bottom)
P3: Same problem persists. Regulations that govern the type of casing and cement used for a solution has insufficient knowledge. 2 examples of insufficient knowledge is given, and focuses on the third insufficient knowledge and we get the North America example that suggests that this can lead to international concern.

(A) Quickly eliminate because the sentences pre post line 44 does not mention human health.

(B) looks good because it addresses one of three examples given in P3. Keep for now.

(C) Quickly eliminate b/c it's out of scope.

(D) Clearly wrong because it's also out of scope.

(E) Tempting but when I read it closely, I see that this talks about risks resulting from rudimentary understanding of the materials used in manufacturing metal pipe casing. This tempers with the first example. First example is about not knowing long-term stability of using protective barrier and it doesn't go further than that-- to say that line 44 refers to this would be unsupported. We could have a full understanding of the materials used in metal pipe casing, but it may fall because of the dissolution of the cement that is used to set the pipe in place.

With this, all the answers except for B) are clearly ruled out so I stick with B.