Taxpayer: For the last ten years,

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct76% picked this

   should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of

   Why this is right

   This claim is not as matchy-matchy with the first sentence as we would normally expect on Main Conclusion, but this question stem actually says Main Point. These question stems arise so rarely that we don't bother to call them their own question type, but historically Main Point questions are a little different from Main Conclusion. The answer sometimes acts like Main Conclusion and just reiterates the conclusion. Sometimes it gives us an implied conclusion (like here). Sometimes it says "Conclusion, because Premise". So we loosen our standards a little for Main Point. Since our author was saying "it was fiscally irresponsible to try to economize and spend only $1 million / year on bridge maintenance", it's implied that our author thinks "they should have spend more". He presents an example of a "well-run" program, and they spend more ($15 million / year vs. $1 million / year).

   Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
2. B

   Not About Reconstruction8% picked this

   would have had a well-run bridge program if it had spent more money for reconstruction

   The author's main point is that the maintenance budget was irresponsibly low, and because of it, now they have a whopping $400 million reconstruction bill. The author thinks it would have been a better run program if they had spent more money for maintenance; that way they would be able to spend less on reconstruction.

   8%
3. C

   Opposite12% picked this

   is spending more than it needs to on maintenance of

   The author is saying that they're spending less than they need to on maintenance, which is why they now have a huge emergency repair bill. They are paying $1 million / year on maintenance, and the author thinks they should be spending closer to $15 million / year.

   12%
4. D

   Unsupported: save money for emergency1% picked this

   is economizing on its bridge program to save money in case

   The author never implied that Metro City had some long-term strategy to save money for emergencies. The author was saying that Metro City was trying to get away with spending less money on maintenance, and their gamble blew up in their face --- now they have to spend $400 million to fix it. Even if this were a factually accurate description of Metro City's behavior (it wasn't), it would still fail to capture the Main Conclusion, because the author's opinion about fiscal irresponsibility needs to be conveyed by the conclusion we pick.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope: cost of building3% picked this

   has bridges that are more expensive to maintain than they were

   This paragraph never discusses the cost of building these bridges.

   3%