(A) is incorrect because Passage A does not provide any causal explanation for a type of environmental pollution. In responding to these questions, we want to pick the main idea that we can specifically point to in the text for direct support. In other words, the answer should be explicitly stated in both passages. Here, the idea of explaining environmental pollution is a jump that is not explicitly stated in Passage A.
(B) is correct because both passages clearly describe the composition and properties of drilling muds and place primary emphasis on this concept. Passage A discusses this in the second paragraph, while Passage B discusses it in the second and third paragraphs.
Does this make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
tomgbeanOctober 20, 2019
Hi @skylar,
Yes that makes sense, but does passage As mention of the toxic properties of the chemicals used for drilling and the problem studying them not count?
thanks!
SkylarOctober 20, 2019
@tomgbean Good question! Ultimately no, that part of the passage does not give us enough information.
The problem that Passage A is describing in that part is the ambiguity of names for such chemicals. The phrase "some toxic" (lines 25-26) is the only mention of pollution. Since option (A) reads "provide causal explanations for a type of environmental pollution," we would need Passage A to talk specifically about how these toxic ingredients create a problem for the environment, not just that they sometimes exist. We cannot make the jump in logic to assume that they do affect the environment since this is not explicitly stated in the passage.
Hope this helps! Let me know if you need more clarification.
