Self-study
The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources. ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██ █████ ███████ ████████████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████
Objective: Identify the Main Conclusion
The argument discusses topsoil in the United States, a valuable natural resource that has been "ignored for too long." According to the argument, crop production and erosion might be severely reducing topsoil levels. Even so, the federal government spends a "ridiculously low" amount on topsoil conservation, spending less in total than some individual states.
It might be difficult to point to a sentence in the stimulus which expresses the main conclusion. That's because the conclusion isn't directly stated, but rather implied. To figure out what the implied conclusion is, we can ask what point the argument is trying to make. That will help us identify the claim supported by the rest of the argument. Here, the point seems to be that the federal government should spend more on topsoil conservation.
3.
Which one of the following ████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
Corn is not █ ██████████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ █████████
The argument doesn't discuss the cost of corn, so there's no support for a conclusion that corn isn't cost-effective. The argument definitely doesn't go as far as proposing substitutes for corn.
b
A layer of ███████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ██████ █████ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████
The argument doesn't tell us how much topsoil is required to cultivate corn. This proposed conclusion doesn't have any support in the argument.
c
Soil conservation is █ ██████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████
The argument certainly implies that the federal government should take some responsibility for topsoil conservation, but never suggests that the states shouldn't take responsibility as well. (C) goes beyond what the argument supports.
d
The federal government’s ████████████ ███ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████████
(D) gets so close, except for one word: inequitable. The problem is, the argument doesn't discuss equity or the fair distribution of topsoil conservation funding. The argument is just about the overall amount of funding, so a conclusion about equity is beyond what the argument can support.
e
The federal government ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████████
This is the unstated conclusion supported by the argument: that the federal government should put way more money towards topsoil conservation. The argument comes close to stating this by saying current spending is