Baumgartner’s comparison of the environmental

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct77% picked this

   Baumgartner makes a deceptive comparison between the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered

   Why this is right

   This matches the meaning of the first sentence, which was our conclusion. Is saying "X is misleading" the same as "X is deceptive"? Yes, mostly. The word deceptive seems to imply an intent to mislead, whereas misleading is neutral. Someone could write a headline that we might say is accidentally misleading. The writer didn't realize the headline was misleading. But it sounds weird to say that such a headline is accidentally deceptive. But even if there is some nuance between 'misleading' and 'deceptive', they are at least cousins, and this answer is the closest available match to the meaning of the first sentence.

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

   77%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal / Premise Last-Claim Trap2% picked this

   The use of a typical gasoline-powered car results in much greater resource depletion than does the use of

   This doesn't look anything like the first sentence, so we don't really need to read it. If we did, we would see it's basically re-stating a fact from the final sentence. Facts are never conclusions. We want to find an opinion that is supported by facts (or by other opinions). Main Conclusion questions usually have a trap answer that sounds like the last claim, because students are most accustomed to seeing conclusions at the end of the paragraph (they do usually show up at the end, throughout LR, except for Main Conclusion and Role!)

   2%
3. C

   Inaccurate vs. Incomplete12% picked this

   Baumgartner uses inaccurate data in his comparison of the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered

   This is temptingly similar to the first sentence, but (A) is closer in meaning. ORIG: B's comparison is misleading. (A): B's comparison is deceptive. (C) B's comparison is based on inaccurate data. Our author wasn't complaining that Baumgartner's data was inaccurate, she was mad that it was incomplete. She was complaining that he only considered the environmental impact of each type's production, when a full assessment required consideration of other environmental impacts, like its use and end-of-life disposal.

   12%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal / Premise7% picked this

   The total life cycle of a product is what matters in assessing

   This doesn't look anything like the first sentence, so we don't really need to read it. If we did, we would see it's stating a premise in the 2nd sentence. We can tell that this isn't any sort of conclusion, because there's no support for it. We can't point to any claims in the paragraph that are trying to persuade us to believe that the TOTAL life cycle is what matters. No one needed to persuade us of that because it seems self-justifying that the total of all X and Y's effects are needed to compare the relative impact of X and Y.

   7%
5. E

   Unstated2% picked this

   The production of gasoline-powered cars creates more environmental hazards than does that

   This doesn't look anything like the first sentence, so we don't really need to read it. If we did, we would see that it's saying something never said in the paragraph, so by definition it's not going to be the conclusion. The passage never told us whether the production of gas cars was better/worse than that of electric cars.

   2%