Ecologist: Landfills are generally designed to hold ten years' worth of waste. ████ ██████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ████████ █████ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████ ████ █████ ███ ██ █████████ ████████
Other people think that as active landfills are closed over the next ten years, there will be a serious shortage of usable landfills. The author concludes that this belief is unsound. The author supports this conclusion by asserting that the belief is based on the assumption that no new landfills will open over the next ten years, and by asserting that this assumption is unlikely to be true.
The referenced text is other people’s position. They think that there will be a shortage of landfills because many active landfills will be closed over the next ten years.
The claim that there will ██ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████
It follows from ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ █████████
The referenced text does not follow from the first sentence. It doesn’t follow from any claim in the stimulus. Some people think it follows from the claim that landfills will close over the next decade, but the author’s point is that it does not follow from that claim.
It is the ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
The author’s conclusion criticizes the referenced text.
It establishes the █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████████
The referenced text does not support the author’s conclusion. It’s criticized by the author’s conclusion.
It is a █████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ██████
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. The author’s argument criticizes the view that there will be an inevitable crisis of landfill availability.
It is an ████████████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
The referenced text is not a premise or a conclusion of the author’s argument. It’s criticized by the author’s argument.