Few ideas are more deeply entrenched in our political culture than tha

Hi Randude & Ergenekon,

Yes, the answer is B.

Here is the Official Explanation.

What do we know from the passage about protecting endangered species?
Only two things: that it‘s been successful but unfair to landowners. Which is the political right more likely to care about? Likely landowners and the right would likely attack the program on this basis. A quick scan of reaction knocks out (A) and (B), and understanding the reasons for that reaction leads immediately to (C).

(A): Opposite. While the right might like a lack of regulation, the program‘s success is only because of regulation.

(B): The correct answer

(C): Out of Scope. The right might enjoy refuting the claims of the left, but not if it comes with heavy governmental regulation.

(D): Distortion. While the right will reject the program, they‘re concerned less with the aspect of its success than its cost. Furthermore, we already know the program has been successful.

(E): They would not be indifferent as described above

Hope it helps.

Hi,
I think the answer to Q3 is C as well.

After reading the official explanation, looks like the answer choices B & C were flipped between the Question & Answer explanation.

Question
B. They would extol it because its success refutes the pessimistic claims of the political left.
C. They would criticize it because its success was due to costly regulations.

Official Explanation
(C): Out of Scope. The right might enjoy refuting the claims of the left, but not if it comes with heavy governmental regulation.

But if you read carefully, Choice B is the one talking about refuting the claims of the left. A quick google search of the question shows that C is the right answer.

Hope this helps with the confusion. Thanks for posting the question!

I believe the answer to be B. C has a much wider scope.
Please read the last 2 lines.

Hmm.. I am not so sure. I think the Option B is the more generic one as the passage never mentions anything about the right trying to praise the program. It is like saying that the right praises anything as long as the left refutes it. In fact the author actually says, both left & right are not supporting the program.

Last two sentences of the passage:
"the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost."

Again, the author never said that the right will praise or support the program. He actually said they will probably not support it because they do not want to admit that the government regulations actually produce benefits at an affordable cost. I think this almost translates to that they will criticize the program due to its heavy cost.

Q2: is all about the last paragraph , starting with Contrast "Nevertheless"
Q: Based on information in the passage, each of the following statements is a plausible explanation of why pessimistic appraisals of the environment continue to be issued EXCEPT:
or in simple words, even though (efforts to control environmental degradation) are showing +ve results, why different groups are not acknowledging it , which one below is not a possible Reason ?

A. environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the movement. ---> read the part where it says, they know it but (reluctant to acknowledge the good news). Correct
B. an immense amount of work still needs to be done to save the environment. ---> environmentalists reason to play it down
C. optimistic evaluations would have unwanted political repercussions. ---> political right reason to play it down
D. environmentalists garner support by arousing concerns and fears. ---> same as B environmentalists reason to play it down
E. selfish interests of certain groups of people. ---> same as C political right reason

Nevertheless, the vocabulary of environmentalism has continued to be dominated by images of futility, crisis, and decline. Nor are environmentalists the only people reluctant to acknowledge the good news; advocates at both ends of the political spectrum, each side for its reasons, seem to have tacitly agreed to play it down. The left is afraid of the environmental good news because it undercuts stylish pessimism; the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.

can you please summarize the last paragraph in easier language. I'm not sure that i really understood the
{ Nor are environmentalists the only people reluctant to acknowledge the good news; advocates at both ends of the political spectrum, each side for its reasons, seem to have tacitly agreed to play it down. The left is afraid of the environmental good news because it undercuts stylish pessimism; the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost }

my understanding is : even though those environmental laws have positive affects but still some don't like them such as the LEFT and the RIGHT parties.
the Lift don't like the laws because it reduce the pessimism and the right don't like them because the results of these laws shows that the government is good and affective. :/ which don't make sense why the lift and the right are so bad ?? :/

can you please explain the last paragraph and explain its relationship to the first paragraph (the structure )

thank you

The paragraph mentions that neither left nor right want to acknowledge the positive effects of environmental laws for their own agenda.

The Left is in favor of environmental laws, but they don't want to acknowledge that a great progress has been made in the implementation of these laws. They still want to portray a dire situation,
so that they can go on with their agenda of more regulation and more protectionism , or you can say more government control and regulation.

The Right doesn't want to acknowledge that the laws are working and improving America's environment in general, because if they acknowledge this, it implies that for once government regulation was needed. The Right wants minimum government regulation.

The question set is hard. got 3 of 4 correct.
Q 1- Detail Q - Time consuming as you have to go back to the passage and verify each one
Q 2 - Detail Q - An EXCEPT Q - which means you will have to find 4 True and 1 False statement... pretty time consuming
Q 3 - Went tangent - The word 'extol' totally threw me off.. I was aware of the portion of the passage where 'right' and 'left' were discussed but could not choose the right answer choice.
Q 4 - Structure Q - This was probably the easiest one.

How much time would anyone normally allocate to do this passage? around 10 mins?

5 min should be enough. Found the passage not to complicated.

Got the same questions right as you, still not sure on Question 3 but all in all this one was not to difficult

Hi there,

for question 4, answer C made more sense to me "C. to suggest that things are not bad as are made out to be by certain groups of people".
If we look the 1st sentence of paragraph 3: "America‘s record of protecting species threatened with extinction, which is often depicted as dismal, is in truth enviable. "

IMO the given example is to suggest that things are not as bad as some people depict. Does anyone agree?

SajjadAhmad Pls provide solution for Q3 ?

Also in Q2 ,option A ... I am confused with the wording of the option. Is it that "environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the movement." or they knew about the movement but were not ready to accept it ?

Please provide your reasoning for question #3, for your query about question #2

environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the movement is right

Thanks

in the third question the given answer is B.But the last passage clearly shows that the right always complain of regulations if there is success ,could someone explain how answer is B

magnus07 , you are correct.

The answer to question #3 could not be B.

SajjadAhmad , would you please check the source?

1. Which of the following statements is false as it pertains to the information given in the passage?

A. Chlorofluorocarbons no longer damage the ozone layer. They still damage, It is just the emissions are lowered down. False. Contender
B. Technical advances have contributed to conservation. Thanks to legislation, technical advances, and lawsuits that have forced polluters to pay liability cost, Not false for sure
C. Raw sludge is no longer a source of ocean pollution for the United States.True, instead of being dumped into the ocean, municipal sludge is either disposed of in regulated landfills or, increasingly, put to good use as fertilizer
D. Recycling has had an impact on landfill dumping. is converting more than twenty per cent of America‘s municipal wastes into useful products Not false for sure
E. Some environmental programs are muddled
It‘s true, of course, that some environmental programs are muddled


2. Based on information in the passage, each of the following statements is a plausible explanation of why pessimistic appraisals of the environment continue to be issued EXCEPT:

EXCEPT QUESTION
A. environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the movement.
As per Last Para, they are aware but they want to downplay the success - Definite Contender
B. an immense amount of work still needs to be done to save the environment.
Quite Possible
C. optimistic evaluations would have unwanted political repercussions.
That is the reason/ fear political left and right do not want to acknowledge it
D. environmentalists garner support by arousing concerns and fears.
Not mentioned - but quite possible - Still mark contender and then compare the other contender
E. selfish interests of certain groups of people
Definitely true


3. If the claims made in the passage are correct, how would politicians on the political right be expected to react to America‘s program to protect endangered species from extinction?

@sajjadahmad/ generis - I need clarity on this one. I am not sure how to approach this one as my answer does not match with OA

Below is How I assumed:-
A. They would extol it because its success is not attributable to governmental regulation.
It is attributable to governmental regulation, Government has made programs specific for this

B. They would extol it because its success refutes the pessimistic claims of the political left.
This would be appropriate for Political left, for Political right cost was one factor but again it has not cost much to the government - thats what i have inferred from -- the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.

C. They would criticize it because its success was due to costly regulations.
It is mentioned it has worked well with being affordable
D. They would criticize it because it has not shown any measurable success.
There are definite numbers given for the success-- "America‘s air and water are getting cleaner, forests are expanding, and many other environmental indicators are on the upswing".
E. They would be indifferent towards it
This appears to be correct to me, as POE method and also as by personalizing the argument


4. What is the main function of the 3rd paragraph in the passage?



Recycling, which was a fringe idea a decade ago, is now a major growth industry, and is converting more than twenty per cent of America‘s municipal wastes into useful products. Emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer, have been declining since 1987. Dozens of American cities once dumped raw sludge into the ocean. Today, instead of being dumped into the ocean, municipal sludge is either disposed of in regulated landfills or, increasingly, put to good use as fertilizer.
A. to criticise industry for increased pollution
Does not talk about increased pollution
B. to urge the government to ban the dumping of effluents in rivers
It talks about the bans/ policies/ laws are already in place and now the effects of them
C. to suggest that things are not bad as are made out to be by certain groups of people
Not really in this Paragraph, In this paragraph only details about the changes brought by the policies are talked about
D. to describe the positive impact of efforts to control environmental degradation
Correct - It talks about Positive impact of the policies - Contender
E. to provide an agenda for pollution control
again Not an agenda but the changes brought by the policies are talked about

SajjadAhmad For Q3 ...the last sentence of last passage tells " the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost."

so a/c to this the and should be option c

QUESTION #3 - SOLUTION (As I see the matter, for Question #3, no answer is correct)

Alpha14 magnus07 and dushyanta

Relevant portions of the passage include:
environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective, have cost less than was anticipated, and have made the economies of the countries that have put them into effect stronger, not weaker.
-- environmental regulations are effective, have cost less than anticipated, and have strengthened the economy

America‘s record of protecting species threatened with extinction, which is often depicted as dismal, is in truth enviable. Since 1973, when the Endangered Species Act took effect,
-- Since 1973, when a law went into effect, protecting endangered species in the U.S. has been resoundingly successful—enviably so.

advocates at both ends of the political spectrum play [] down [the good news: environmental laws have been successful]. . . . the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.
-- the right does not want to acknowledge good news that shows (proves) that government regulations
(1) are not wickedness incarnate = are beneficial and successful
(2) are affordable (do not cost too much)

THE QUESTION

THE OPTIONS

• No. The passage explains that government regulations, passed in response to heightened consciousness about dangers to the environment, have been central to the successful address of threats to the environment
• The passage credits the Endangered Species act of 1973 (a governmental regulation) with many successes and lists them.
• NOT attributable to government regulation? Barely mentioned.
-- It is true that "the laws, along with private efforts, have been a stunning success" (P2) and that "technical advances" are partly responsible for success (P5)
But those mentions of non-governmental action are general and not tied to preservation of species.
-- A government regulation, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, is credited with success.
• The regulations are mostly responsible for success generally. These regulations are so effective that the right does not want to talk about them
-- "environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective"
• The passage gives us no reason to believe that the right would (1) talk about success or (2) lie about the basis of success
Eliminate A


• if the claims in the passage are true, the right is not going to extol ANY success achieved by government regulation.
-- They have been silent. Why would they change?
• nothing in the passage suggests that the right cares about the alleged pessimism on the left.
-- We have no idea what the right thinks about the left's alleged pessimism.
-- We do know that the right does not talk about environmentalism's success.
• This cannot be the answer.
Eliminate B


• probably the best of 5 bad answers, though I think (C) is not even remotely close to accurate

• the passage says that the regulations (1) cost less than anticipated; (2) strengthened the economy; and (3) "actually produce benefits at an affordable cost"
• the passage also says that "conservation has been an excellent investment."

• I suppose that the right could lie about "affordable costs" and "strengthened economies" and "excellent investment(s)"
• I suppose that the right could lie or exaggerate and say that ANY cost is too costly
-- Example #1: the right could argue that one externality is too costly: private landowners who discover a rare animal on their lands are prohibited from using those lands [not actually true but we take the passage at its word -- the government rewards landowners who cooperate with conservation efforts]
-- Example #2: the right could argue that polluters should not have to pay for polluting.

• nothing in this passage says that the regulations are "costly" or that the right believes the regulations are costly.
-- The right is shutting up about the "good news" of environmental regulation because this regulation is not evil incarnate and IS affordable (last line)
KEEP C? ELIMINATE C? (My call: Eliminate C.)


• if the claims in the passage are correct, then the governmental regulatory program to protect endangered species from extinction has been a measurable success.
From the passage: [only] seven animal species in North America have disappeared. Several hundred others once considered certain to die out continue to exist in the wild. A number of species, including the bald eagle and the Arctic peregrine falcon have been or are being taken off the priority-protection list.
• I suppose that the right could lie about these successes.
-- If such lying were likely, then why is the right not lying NOW?
-- Why is the right being quiet about environmentalism's success now?
Eliminate D


• the right cannot simultaneously be afraid of/hostile towards and indifferent towards something.
-- To be indifferent is not to care.
-- The right cares. They don't want to talk about good environmental news because government regulation created it.
They are "afraid." Afraid is not "indifferent."
Eliminate E

Conclusion: The only answer that stands a chance is (C), but its accuracy turns on a guarantee that the right would lie and exaggerate about the program to protect endangered species. So far the right has remained silent. Nothing in the passage suggests that the right is NOT silent or would not be silent about endangered species programs.

This question is not well written.
I think that no answer to #3 is correct.

Hope that helps.



(Am I really writing "success of environmentalism" on a day during which schoolkids are leading strikes in order to protect the planet? I'll be clear: I'm with the kids. )