Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

A. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim. Wrong: second does not support the claim in first

B. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support. The second is evidence, and not a position.

C. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support. Second is not a position.

D. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning’s contention. CORRECT.

E. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that position. Second is evidence that opposes the first position
(that position)
_________________

Hi mates,

IMO A

C, D and E out: the first part is a claim.

Between A and B, I'd go with A since the second part is an evidence

OA and Source?

Regards

The answer is D. Also, position and claim can be used interchangeably (so you cannot eliminate an answer choice in this choice based on the fact that it states a "position".

I'm afraid so. The word "claimed" led me to an error...

I picked D. It took me 3:02 mins. I need to speed up.

stm 1: Critics opinion with no adequate evidence
stm 2: Author evidence that attacks critics opinion

What is the difference between position & evidence????

Evidence is a fact. A position is an opinion or a thesis.

IMO D. Took 2 mins answer this one and had to read the stimulus twice

In option 1, author says: "The first identifies a claim", does it mean first is itself a claim or first found a claim somewhere in the passage?
_________________

first is an Opinion the second is a Fact, so eliminate B,C

D fits

In such questions the process of elimination from one side to other works awesome can solve the problem in 1 min 40 sec. IMO its D

"Since " is a premise marker. "Since" indicates an evidence.
The second bold faced part starts with a 'since'. So Second bold faced part is an evidence.

Option A , D , E are left.

Option A is wrong because the second bold faced part does not support the first bold faced part. Also 'false' is the wrong word to use ..."inadequately supported' will be correct.

Option E is wrong because the second bold faced part does not support the first bold faced part.

Only option D is correct.

Working from easiest to eliminate.

The second is not a position, it is used as evidence in support of the argument that "this evidence is far from adequate".

Eliminate B and C

Eliminate A - it is nowhere indicated that this evidence is cited by anyone but the author.

The first portion of D and E is correct. The second portion of E is incorrect as the second statement is evidence, but it is used in support of the author's claim, not the claim the author is arguing against.

Understanding the passage:

Critics of some particular pollution control regulations have the opinion that the money spent over the last ten years to reduce the emission of certain gases went wasted. The evidence they offer for this claim is that the emission of these gases has gone up during the last decade steadily. This may feel like compelling evidence but is inadequate to push the claim because the industrial facilities that give out these gases have also gone up significantly during the last decade. (It may be possible that a staggering increase that may have happened in ten years was slowed down significantly due to the regulations, even if the regulations could not reduce the emissions per se)

Conclusion: The fact that emission of the mentioned gases has gone up during the last decade is not adequate to claim that the money spent over the last ten years to reduce the emission of these gases went wasted.

Question stem analysis

In the reasoning given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
This question addresses the argument as the reasoning. It is useful to note to avoid confusions while analyzing the options. Otherwise, it is a straightforward boldface question which asks to identify the roles of the relevant parts.

Prethinking

BF1:
the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted.
Role: Claim/opinion/position/standpoint/belief against the conclusion
Relation to BF2: Opposite direction

BF2:
since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built.
Role: Fact/Evidence/Observation that supports the conclusion
Relation to BF1: against the claim put forward by BF1

Option Analysis

A. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.

The first identifies a claim
Correct
that the reasoning seeks to show is false.
Correct
the second is evidence
Correct
that has been cited by others in support of that claim.
Incorrect. It is reasoning cited against that claim in BF1.

B. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.

The first identifies a claim
Correct
that the reasoning seeks to show is false.
Correct
the second is a position
No. it is a fact.
for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
BF2 provides support to the reasoning; not vice versa.

C. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.

The first is a position
Correct.
that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence.
Correct. The reasoning opposes the claim by arguing the evidence for the same is not sufficient.
the second is a position
The second is a fact. Therefore, incorrect.
for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
Again, incorrect. BF2 provides support for the reasoning.

D. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning’s contention.

The first is a position
Correct.
that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence.
The argument opposes the claim BF1 by saying the evidence is insufficient. Correct.
the second is evidence
The second one is a fact used as an evidence. Correct.
used to support the reasoning’s contention.
It is indeed used to support the opposition of the argument towards the claim in BF1.
Correct answer.

E. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that position.

The first is a position
correct
that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence.
correct
the second is evidence
correct
that has been used to support that position.
incorrect. It is used to oppose the position stated in BF1.
_________________

Can someone please explain.
what's the difference between "Claim" and "Position"
Because According to me
Claim = Conclusion
Position = Belief
And as I can see in some of the solutions of the question use of both is right.

Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted.
Claim = what did he say? He claims that XYZ is not good. But evidence suggests that XYZ is good.
position: your conclusion/key point . ( here position is --> XYZ is good)

I found that key to crack these questions is to identify: 1. key point 2. relationship between bold statements

I hope it helps

You can toss A & B right upfront because they incorrectly classify the first boldface portion. It says that the first boldface part is a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false. While it is true that the argument disagrees with the claim, the classification is slightly off because the argument is not necessarily trying to prove the claim false outright; it's contending that the claim is inadequately supported by the evidence provided.

Undersatnding the argument -
Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted. Some claim
The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. Opinion + evidence to support the earlier claim (BF1)
This evidence is far from adequate, however,- conclusion
since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built. - Premise to support the conclusion.

Option elimination -

A. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false (No. The argument says it is inadequate and not false); the second is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim. (the BF2 is not supporting BF1).

B. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false (No. The argument says it is inadequate and not false); the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support. (BF2 is not a position. It is a fact.)

C. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; (ok) the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support. (BF2 is not a position. It is a fact.)

D. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence (ok); the second is evidence used to support the reasoning’s contention. (ok. What is the contention - This evidence is far from adequate - the conclusion. The BF2 supports the Conclusion).

E. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence (ok); the second is evidence that has been used to support that position.(the BF2 is not supporting BF1).