Self-study
Although large cities are generally more polluted than the countryside, Conclusion increasing urbanization may actually reduce the total amount of pollution generated nationwide. █████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████████████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ █ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████████ ██ █ █████ ████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ █████ ██████
Net Effect: Might Reduce Total Pollution
The author concedes that cities are more polluted than the countryside, but argues that urbanization may reduce total nationwide pollution. The reasoning: city residents use mass transit and live in energy-efficient homes, so the same number of people produce less pollution packed into a city than spread across small towns. The reduction in pollution that would come from more people moving to cities (increasing urbanization) might end up reducing overall nationwide pollution.
This shows what the author believes is possible:
10 people spread across 5 towns
town
👤👤
◼◼
town
👤👤
◼◼
town
👤👤
◼◼
town
👤👤
◼◼
town
👤👤
◼◼
Total pollution: ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ (10)
each person drives, heats large home
Same 10 people concentrated in 2 cities
city
👤👤👤👤👤
◼◼◼◼
city
👤👤👤👤👤
◼◼◼◼
Total pollution: ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ (8)
mass transit, energy-efficient homes
Each city has more pollution than any single town (4 vs. 2). But the national total is lower (8 vs. 10).
The stimulus has two conclusions. "Thus" marks the last sentence as one conclusion. But the claim that increasing urbanization may reduce total pollution is also a conclusion, because the author is using the premises and the "thus" sentence to support it.
If you're confused and think the "thus" sentence is the main conclusion, ask which claim makes more sense as support for the other. Is the author saying "urbanization might reduce pollution, and that's how I know concentrated populations produce less pollution"? Or is the author saying "concentrated populations produce less pollution, and that's how I know urbanization might reduce total pollution"? The second makes more sense. That's how we know the "thus" sentence is a stepping stone supporting the point about increasing urbanization. That makes the claim about increasing urbanization the main conclusion.
11.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████████ ████████████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███████████
a
It is used ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ███████
The author never recommends that people should live in large cities. The argument is about the effects of urbanization on pollution, not about whether people ought to move to cities. In addition, (A) describes the referenced claim as support for a conclusion, but the referenced claim is itself the main conclusion.
b
It is a █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ █████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████████
The author doesn't challenge the claim that large cities are more polluted. She concedes it with the word "although." Her point is that even though individual cities are dirtier (see the visual: 4 pollution squares per city vs. 2 per town), the total nationwide pollution could decrease (8 vs. 10).
c
It is a █████████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █████
The referenced claim isn't just table-setting. It's what the entire argument is trying to prove. The premises about mass transit and energy-efficient homes, and the intermediate conclusion about pollution per capita, all work to support this claim. A statement that "plays no logical role" wouldn't have evidence designed to support it.
d
It is a ███████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ █████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████████
The claim that large cities are more polluted is a concession. The referenced claim (urbanization may reduce total pollution) doesn't support that concession — it's actually in tension with it, which is why the author uses "although" to set up the contrast.
e
It is a █████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████
This accurately identifies the referenced claim as the main conclusion. The rest of the argument — premises about mass transit and efficient homes, plus the intermediate "thus" conclusion — is designed to establish the claim that urbanization may reduce total nationwide pollution.
You might wonder whether the "thus" sentence is actually the main conclusion, since "thus" is a conclusion indicator. But the "thus" sentence functions as an intermediate conclusion.