Forest Preservation

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct87% picked this

   Arguments concerning the economic use of forests must be carefully examined before reasonable policy decisions

   Why this is right

   This is a pretty lame main point, because rather than "these arguments must be carefully examined", we should be hearing, "I've carefully examined these arguments, and they don't hold up". But it ends up being our best available answer. We know that the last couple sentences of the 1st paragraph are the Framing Ideas that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs are unpacking. This answer sounds like the sentence in the 1st paragraph where we got the holy Purpose Pivot (but, yet, however, recently): If well-grounded policy decisions are to be made concerning which forests must be preserved and how much forest must be preserved, policy makers should have a comprehensive understanding of the arguments for and against the use of forests. The rest of the passage focuses on two specific claims and tries to provide context for a fuller understanding of those issues.

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

   87%
2. B

   Too Strong: insignificant2% picked this

   The dangers posed to biodiversity by deforestation, although considerable, are insignificant when compared to those posed by ill-considered attempts at

   This sounds way too harsh. The author is diplomatically debunking a couple alarmist claims that go into the forest debate. But this answer makes it sound like the author is sneering at attempts to have stricter regulation, saying "The considerable dangers posed by deforestation are tiny when compared to the huge dangers posed by ill-conceived attempts to more strictly regulate forests". The author never discussed any huge dangers posed by more regulation.

   2%
3. C

   Too Narrow: only 2nd claim8% picked this

   Careful review of official statistics shows that neither deforestation nor displacement of natural forest by commercial plantations is proceeding as

   This answer only deals with the content of paragraph 3 and 4. It doesn't have a way to wrap its arms around the discussion about forests being the lungs of the earth. The author set out to debunk two claims that are ill-informed contributions to the debate over forest regulation. This answer only deals with the second claim.

   8%
4. D

   Wrong Emphasis / Too Narrow1% picked this

   While there is some hope that tropical rain forests might yield information that will result in new medicines, the primary reason for

   At the end of the 3rd paragraph, the author is saying that one can make a case that we should preserve forests' biodiversity for the sake of our own benefit (medical applications) or for the sake of the fact that nature made these diverse forests and it would be wrong for us to destroy it. The author never indicates that she agrees more with one rationale than the other, whereas this answer makes it seem like she is strongly on the side of defending forests on moral grounds. In addition to never committing to this position, this certainly isn't the main focus of the passage.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope: ineffective way3% picked this

   Assuming biodiversity is an instrumental good, imposing stricter regulation on the establishment of commercial plantations is an ineffective way

   The author never discusses the specific effects of stricter regulation in order to argue that this method is an ineffective way of preserving biodiversity. The author is just saying the urge to impose stricter regulations is based in part on two claims that merit special scrutiny, since they both seem wrong or overblown.

   3%