We know this is a most strongly supported question because of the question stem: The statements in the editorial, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
Our stimulus starts by explaining that when folks in government find out that a public service isn’t being provided adequately, the most common response is to increase funding for that service. Makes sense! If the trash isn’t getting hauled away fast enough–buy more trash trucks!
We are then told that the least efficiently run bureaucracies most commonly receive an increase in funds. So there’s a leap that’s being made to connect these two statements. We know that when services are poor, funding for services increases. The editorial states that “because of this” (referential for the increase in funding for inadequate services) the least efficient bureaucracies most commonly receive boosts in funding. If we trace the logic here, we can see that the implication is that these poorly run bureaucracies are most likely responsible for inadequately provided services. This is the only conceivable way that the editorial could say that funding for these bureaucracies commonly increases and give the first sentence as a reason why this funding commonly increases (as indicated by the phrase “because of this”).
That’s our synthesis right there. When we look at these two sentences together, the clear implication is that inefficient bureaucracies are responsible for inadequate services.
Now let’s look at the answer choices:
Correct Answer Choice (A) What do you know! First answer choice out the gates matches up with our synthesis. This comprehensively lays out the implication of these two sentences when taken together.
Answer Choice (B) We don’t have any information about when or why legislators might reduce funding–so we have no information to support this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This is introducing the idea that legislators “repeatedly” boost funding during periods of inefficiency. We don’t have any information to support this. We just know that inefficient bureaucracies are the bureaucracies that most commonly receive boosts in funding, but we have no idea how these boosts occur (i.e. repeatedly or in lump sums).
Answer Choice (D) We have no information that indicates how services or bureaucracies fare as a result of funding boosts–so we have no information that supports this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) We know nothing about the amount of money included in any of these funding boosts. We know there’s a correlation between being inefficient and receiving money, but we don’t know if there’s a correlation between the magnitude of inefficiency and the amount of money.
We start with the question stem: Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument? This is a Main Conclusion question.
The stimulus begins by stating, “Baumgartner’s comparison of the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered cars with those of electric cars is misleading.”
Ok, that sure sounds like a claim that I need to be convinced of. If this is the Main Conclusion, then the argument will give premises to support that idea. The author then goes on to say that “Baumgartner examines only production of the cars, whereas it is the product's total life cycle - production, use, and recycling - that matters in determining the environmental impact.” Ok, that definitely Supports the idea that Baumgartner is misleading. You can’t compare the two books by looking only at the first chapter; you need to compare the entirety of the book. Similarly, you can’t compare cars by looking only at production; you need to look at production + use + recycling. Baumgartner made an error by only looking at a small piece of the puzzle, the production, when you actually need to examine more. This is a reason why Baumgartner’s comparison is misleading.
The author doesn't think you should take his word for it that production and use, and recycling should be considered. He provides evidence for the claim by saying that a typical gasoline-powered car both consumes more resources and pollutes more than an electric car. So the idea that gas cars consume more and pollute more are Minor Premises that support the Sub Conclusion that we should consider production, use, and recycling to determine environmental impact. The Sub Conclusion supports the Main Conclusion that Baumgartner’s comparison is misleading when he only evaluated a small piece, the production, of the larger environmental impact puzzle. Since our job is to identify the Main Conclusion, we can now go to the answer choices to figure out which one expresses the same idea.
Correct Answer Choice (A) While saying that “Baumgartner makes a deceptive comparison between the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered and electric cars” is slightly more pointed, it gets at the idea that the comparison is misleading. This is the correct answer.
Answer Choice (B) is a minor premise that supports the sub conclusion in Answer Choice (D). Since this is a Main Conclusion question, both of these are wrong.
Answer Choice (C) is a popular trap answer choice, the trap being “inaccurate data.” A test-taker who picks this answer realizes that the author is saying that Baumgartner’s evidence is insufficient, but the test-taker inaccurately assumes that it is because the data is inaccurate. Does the author charge Baumgartner with using inaccurate data? No. The author simply claims that the data Baumgartner uses is not the full story. Take a shot every time the author is inaccurate jeez.
Answer Choice (E) is not the Main Conclusion, and even worse, it’s an assumption. Earlier, we discussed how we actually do not know the environmental impact of gas vs. electric cars. All we know is that gas cars consume more and pollute more. We do not know if producing gas-powered cars is more environmentally hazardous than producing electric cars. While the author does argue Baumgartner’s analysis of production is misleading, we do not know the way it is misleading. Is it a matter of degree? Does Baumgartner think producing gas-powered cars is less environmentally damaging? Does the author think producing gas-powered cars is less environmentally damaging? The answer to all of these questions is “maybe.”