PT23.S2.Q22 - shortly after the persian gulf war

Comments

• CoolPrez Alum Member

  July 2016 18 karma

  Questions like these where one tries to think about what background information is actually saying can get very confusing. Especially in this case when you try to visualize how it could be the case that after a war there was less damage. But trying to understand the background information confuses the reader and attempting to do will only confuse you further.
  What I did was break down what was happening in the stimulus into its basic argument structure. Don't let the background info get in your way of understanding whats going on. For example, the last clause of the stimulus is completely unnecessary and realizing that helps you strike off a couple answer choices very easily. The fact that the levels are lower compared to some temperate region really doesn't play a part in the discrepancy. In fact, I got rid of A, B, and C without having to even really put my conscious thought into them.
  
  So,
  -investigators found less of the pollution after a War than they found before the war.
  -investigators found less of this specific pollution level after the war than before the war.
  -the stimulus also mentions how the oil production slows because of the war. (we'll see how this affects the discrepancy)
  
  How could this be the case when the stimulus tries to have us believe that the War somehow contributed more to the pollution?
  Well, D does a great job of resolving this problem. The answer choice basically says, "yea a war may have some pollution effects. But, the war slows down normal oil production. In fact, when there isn't a war and there is normal oil production during any other time(peacetime), oil production transport actually has high levels of the specific pollution level and has MASSIVE oil dumping."
  This seems to resolve the discrepancy pretty well.
  
• civnetn Free Trial Member

  July 2016 edited July 2016 148 karma

  First, thanks for taking the time to type that up - I really do appreciate it! Now, I understand what you're saying, but if Peacetime causes high levels of pollution (in other words, any time you have peacetime pollution levels go up), and there is Peacetime both before AND after the war, if we accept this answer choice, wouldn't we have to conclude that levels of pollution increased both before AND after the war? That's the issue I'm having!
• 1 Like

  runiggyrun Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  July 2016 2481 karma

  I think the key words in the stimulus are "shortly after the war". Considering that the question is a "most helps explain", which doesn't need to reach the level of 100% ironclad, I think it's OK to make use of the common sense assumption that the levels of production "shortly after" the war are not what one would consider normal peacetime levels (the stimulus mentions that production had slowed during the war, and it probably would take quite a while for it to get back to "regular" levels). That makes D the closest to an explanation.
• civnetn Free Trial Member

  July 2016 edited July 2016 148 karma

  I just find this question interesting because it's the first I've come across in the LR section that I'm not 100% satisfied with. Most of the time, upon reviewing, it seems like there's a pretty definite answer to each question. But in my opinion, not with this one. I get what you're saying though. I mean, I'm 100% sure the other answer choices are incorrect, so obviously this must be the correct answer. I'm in agreement there. I still find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that it's a common sense assumption for levels of production "shortly after" the war to get back to "regular" levels. Because I don't think that logic is sound.
  
  I mean, in evaluating this question, I don't think it's proper, logically speaking, to say, "Well, shortly after the war, pollution level are not what one would consider normal peacetime levels, so D can't apply to after the war." Because, D doesn't follow that pattern of reasoning. D does not say, "If you do not have normal peacetime levels, then..." No. D says, if you're in Peacetime (which is either yes or no / black or white) then you have massive pollution due to oil. Period.
  
  So I totally get what you're saying. I just have a hard time seeing how this resolves the discrepancy to ANY extent. D is a blanket statement. I mean, after we apply D) we can THEN make the common sense assumption that there wasn't enough time after the war for production of oil to ramp up again, but that's not the answer choice. I think in that case, it would be the common sense assumption solving the discrepancy not the answer choice.