Self-study
Editorialist: The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible. ███ █████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████████ █████████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ███
Summarize Argument
The editorialist tells us that radical environmentalist extremists can play a positive role, even though they often make false claims and suggest impractical solutions. So what’s positive about that? As the editorialist says, people are only willing to address environmental issues if they fear disaster, even if their fears are based on misinformation. This implies that the radical environmentalists can help motivate people towards change by creating fear, thus playing a positive role.
Identify Conclusion
The editorialist’s conclusion is the concession that “there is a positive role to be played” by radical environmentalists.
18.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████████
a
The little progress ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████████████████
The argument doesn’t discuss all the factors that lead to environmental progress, and definitely doesn’t say that fear created by radical environmentalists is the most important factor.
b
Radical environmentalists, by █████████ █████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ███████
This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The editorialist’s argument is designed to suggest that the extremists, by spreading fear, can motivate environmentally-friendly change.
c
Social and political ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██ █████████ ███████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ █████████████
This is much broader than anything the editorialist claims. The argument is specifically talking about inertia on environmental issues, and not inertia in general. Also, the argument’s actual claim about inertia is a premise, not the main conclusion.
d
Radical environmentalists often ███ █████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ████████ ████████
The editorialist doesn’t tell us anything about the motivations or intentions of the radical environmentalists, so we simply don’t know if this is true.
e
Radical environmentalists advocate █████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████████
The editorialist never claims that radical environmentalists totally ignore facts and practicality, even if they sometimes make false claims or make unfeasible proposals. This goes beyond what the argument actually says.