Q14

[ohthatpatrick]

For Main Point questions, I often ask myself, "what was the most valuable sentence?"

If there is one sentence that feels most like the overarching thesis, or the author's signature opinion, then there is a good chance that the correct answer will paraphrase that line.

Otherwise (on in addition), I ask myself, "what was the purpose of this passage?"

Thinking about what the author was trying to accomplish/convey with the passage forces me to focus on the big picture idea.

In this passage, I feel that lines 19-21 are the most valuable sentence. After all, they foreshadow the function of paragraph 2 and 3 (an example of unsuccessful implementation and an example of successful implementation).

We might also expect the Main Point answer to include the key reason for WHY one was successful and the other not (sufficiently involving the locals).

A) "plagued" and "halted" might be too extreme for the Brazil example. This choice also places effort on "later" vs. "earlier", which is accurate (Brazil was later than India) but seemingly not a relevant concern.

B) This is too far from lines 19-21. The passage is not mainly advice to investors. If anything, it would be advice to people hoping to implement renewable technologies that local investors/industries are used.

C) 1st half is dreamy, 2nd half contradicts the moral of the 2 examples: LOCAL investment/expertise is crucial to long-term viability.

D) Beautiful. 1st half covers the the 1st paragraph, 2nd half covers the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

E) We can't support the idea that "wind" is superior to other technologies. The fact that Brazil failed and India succeeded had nothing to do with solar vs. wind, but rather excluding local involvement vs. exploiting local involvement.

(D) is our answer.

[deedubbew]

I seem to have problems with Main Point/Global questions. I realize that some wrong answers only point to details of the passage instead of taking it as a whole. However, in this case answer choice A, seemed to fit the sentence that I thought was a good scope of the whole; lines 19-21. Answer choice D seemed to be more of a stretch because it talks about the future, whereas Answer A and the passage talk about cases that did and did not work in the past. The only line that points to the future is line 9-12. However, I don't think that line encompasses the thrust of the passage as a whole. PLEASE HELP!!!

[Mab6q]

No disrespect to Patrick, but I'm still not getting why A is wrong. It seems to be as good (or as bad) as D.

[ohthatpatrick]

Not to double down on my earlier justifications (as I can offer another one), but are there objections to anything I said?

i.e. do you accept that 19-21 is the Main Point?

If not, what sentence would you pick (you can pick two to combine if you'd like)?

I pick 19-21 because it is the only connective tissue between all three paragraphs.

P1 discusses a looming global problem and a potential solution. The thesis sentence, 19-21, says that the potential solution's is not always implemented successfully. P2 and P3 are underneath this umbrella, providing an example of BAD implementation and GOOD implementation, respectively.

As I said before, I don't love "plagued by economic conflicts" as a synopsis of what went wrong in Brazil, but otherwise we could probably say that (A) is "true".

But, when faced with two Main Point answers, both of which seem factually accurate, simply ask yourself a couple questions:
1. "Does either of these wrap its arms around MORE of the passage?"
2. "Does either of these sound more like the author's purpose in writing the passage?"

In terms of #1,
(D) addresses more of the passage because its nod to "meeting the rising energy demands of certain countries" allows us to bring in lines 1-19.

In terms of #2,
We can assume that the author is concerned about the problem he is discussing. That means the author cares about finding an adequate solution. If the author presents two different examples to highlight a distinction between an inadequate and an adequate means of addressing the problem, then the author's purpose is to communicate the importance of the distinction between the two cases. Although (A) does MENTION "relying more heavily on local involvement", it doesn't LEAN on that idea as the difference-maker the way that (D) does. And in terms of the fact that (D) is forward looking, a cautionary tale meant to help the world better address the Problem, it has more to do with the author's purpose than (A), which is just descriptively backwards looking.