The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources. But one resource has been ignored...
tyler.channell7@gmail.comSeptember 24, 2018
I got the conclusion right, but the answer wrong.
Hey, I was wondering if there were any tips for this I underlined the correct conclusion for this answer, which is "But one resource has been ignored too long." But I put down (D) as the correct answer. I don't know if it had to do with being tired or not, or me misreading the answer choices. It has happened on a couple of questions more questions in this section.
Any tips will help! Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
@tyler.channell7@gmail.com again, please make sure you reading the previous discussion threads before starting new ones.
This question has already been asked and answered. Reposting @Naz's response here for your reference:
The main point of the argument is that the United States has for too long ignored the valuable resource of topsoil by keeping soil conservation programs at ridiculously low levels.
How do we know this? Well the argument tells us that the government usually tries to protect valuable natural resources, but it has ignored soil for very long. It tells us that for each bushel of corn produced, as many as two bushels of topsoil can be lost. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many of the states used to be 14 inches thick, but has been reduced to merely six or eight inches. We are then told that federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have continued to be at very low levels and that the total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states. So, in order for the government to stop ignoring the resource of topsoil, it must spend more than it is.
Answer choice (E) states "the federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending." This is the main point of the argument. We are told that the United States has for too long ignored the valuable resource of topsoil by keeping the soil conservation programs at ridiculously low levels. Thus, it is clear that the argument advocates increasing the spending on topsoil so that the government will cease ignoring it.
Answer choice D is incorrect because the stimulus never discusses the federal government's expenditures in the various states. The stimulus discusses the federal expenditures nationwide and the expenditures of some states, but never how much the federal government spends in the individual states. Remember, there are two criteria for the correct answer on Main Point questions: (1) the answer choice must be true and (2) the answer choice must be the main point.
Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions.
Nikki37September 25, 2019
I was having a problem with correctly identifying whether Sentence 5 and 6 is the main conclusion. Sentence 5 begins with Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Sentence 6 begins with Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocation of some individual states. Why isnt Sentence 6 the main conclusion because it is talking about the total federal expenditures instead of federal expenditures, which is found in Sentence 5.
