Self-study
Editorialist: There would seem to be little hazard for consumers associated with chemicals used in treated lumber because the lumber is used outside where fumes cannot accumulate. ████████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ █████ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ █ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████ █████ ████ ███ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorialist concludes that we should investigate the safety of the chemicals used to treat lumber. The editorialist concedes that it may seem like potential harms of these chemicals would be reduced by the fact that lumber is used outside where fumes cannot accumulate. However, to support his claim, the editorialist references two examples where consumers may ingest the chemicals: when children play on playgrounds, and when the lumber is used to contain soil in gardens. In these cases, there is a risk that chemicals could be ingested, which supports the editorialist’s conclusion that these chemicals’ risks should be studied.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the risks of chemicals used to treat lumber should be investigated: “Immediate steps should be taken to determine the safety of these chemicals since consumers could ingest them.
7.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████████
a
The chemicals used ██ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
This is context for the argument, not the main conclusion. The editorialist argues that despite the apparent lack of danger, we should research these chemicals.
b
Treated lumber is ██ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ████ ████████
This kind of comparative statement is not supported by the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.
c
The effects on ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████
This is the main conclusion. The editorialist’s claim is a recommendation to study the chemicals used to treat lumber; the two examples given act as support for this claim.
d
Parents should not █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
While this may be supported by the argument, the editorialist is not making recommendations for parents. This is not the main conclusion. The purpose of the example about children was to illustrate a potential danger of the chemicals.
e
Treated lumber is ████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ █████████
The editorialist is not making a claim on the danger of treated lumber; he is just addressing a possibility of danger that should be investigated further.