by ohthatpatrick Fri May 26, 2017 4:49 pm
I see your concern. I approach these a little less holistically, a little more driven by explicit words/references.
On a first pass through any question stem that says "inferred, implies, suggests, most likely to agree", I'm mainly looking out for potential dealbreaker words:
- stuff that's too strong / too specific
- goes against the author's gist
- out of scope
(A) "generally"
(B) "Usually"
(C) "ANY other kind of risk"
(D) a conditional rule
(E) "main" / "usually" / "completely"
None of these have soft, watered down wording that says, "Hey, check me out first. I seem provable. If you can find a supporting line reference, you're done."
So we'd have to figure out where in the passage each of these ideas is being discussed and research whether we have appropriate wording to justify some of these loaded claims.
For (B), we only have one mention of "policy experts" in the whole passage, line 11, and it says that "PE's tend to (usually) focus on lives at stake."
Thus, we can support (B), and say "PE's would usually NOT focus on whether people's choice to fly was voluntary/involuntary."
The fact that 44-46 makes it seem like policy makers could improve, could get FARTHER away from arbitrary judgments of voluntariness, does not negate line 11's adequate support for (B).
Maybe policy experts tend to (more than 50%) focus on lives at a rate of 60% of the time, and the author would like it to be 80% of the time.
Either way, there's still support for the "usually" (more than 50%) in (B).
By contrast, we have no line reference to justify the "main" category of completely involuntary risk. All we have is, from line 21-23, the idea that an asteroid collision is an example a completely involuntary risk. And, yes, an asteroid collision qualifies as a natural disaster, but we can't quantify whether natural disasters are the "#1 type of risk that is usually purely involuntary".