Q19

[ohthatpatrick]

When the question stem is of the form,
"the author mentions ____ in order to"
"the author's reference to ____ serves to"
"the author does ___ primarily to"
the test is asking "how does this specific detail relate to the broader point/purpose of the surrounding sentences?"

I think of these as "bookend" questions, because the correct answer is almost always a paraphrase of the sentence that came before or after the specific lines/detail we're asked about.

What are the bookend ideas here?

The previous idea was stating that increased use of fossil fuels will have a negative impact on health. Lines 5-9 give an example to support that claim.

The following idea brings up renewable energy as a potential solution to this problem. So we might say that lines 5-9 give us an example of a specific problem that renewable energies might avoid.

However, when they ask this type of question about a sentence that says "for example", the correct answer is almost guaranteed to paraphrase the previous sentence. Writers use "for example" to support their previous point.

A) previous claim was not about climbing energy rate but about how climbing fossil fuel usage affects public health.

B) lines 5-9 don't undermine, they support the previous sentence.

C) previous sentence was not about a timeframe or about renewable energy.

D) yup, this sounds like a paraphrase of the previous sentence. "Fossil fuels may damage human and environmental health" is a decent match for "fossil fuels are a problematic source of energy". And "offer evidence" / "substantiate a claim" / "lend credence to" are the types of phrases we want to hear about a 'for example' sentence.

E) lines 5-9 have nothing to do with "localized involvement", and this answer choice does nothing to reinforce the sentence prior to lines 5-9.

(D) is our answer.

[nicholas.s.gurney]

I think the above summary of why answer (B) is incorrect was bit hasty in its analysis of what B is actually saying. To me, the central thesis of B is not simply the fact that something is being undermined (I contend that something is indeed being undermined- more on that in a moment), but rather the phrase "even if energy is used efficiently" (line 7).

I understand the bookend view, and agree with the summary above on it. However, I don't believe every correct answer always has to be "bookended" per se. Meaning, the content of the correct answer could be within the sentence, albeit this will happen less often (following a pattern set).

That being said, I would ask someone to perhaps provide a better analysis for why D is credited and B is not, other than simply that B is negative and D is positive (paraphrasing here obviously).

I think that what B is doing is pointing out how lines 5-9 undermine the assertion that simply being more efficient with energy is a solution (see lines 7 + 9). Since it is not, we must move on to the only other option- other energy sources.

Thoughts? Thanks!

[nicholasasquith]

I agree with you and I think this is a tricky question. In my view, both (B) and (D) state what is going on correctly, but the question asks only what the purpose is.

I also disagree with the OP's justification for eliminating (B). Now it's pretty obvious that lines 5-9 are giving an example of the problem in the form of evidence (projected doubling of air pollution), but this is not all it does. The author is also undermining a potential, alternate solution for the problem described in the previous sentence. That is, if energy was simply used efficiently, it might not cause pollution to increase as high as they project.

So in the end, it came down to understanding what the question is asking. (B) describes a specific argumentative strategy (undermining an alternate solution) while D explains the purpose of said strategy.

Hope this helps/made sense.

[nflamel69]

B is wrong because it says undermine a claim.... However, for a claim to be a claim it has to be explicitly stated. but the passage never said anything about efficient use of energy

[edmund.koundakjian]

I didn't choose answer D because I do not consider the text in lines 5 to 9 as "evidence". The text describes what is expected or likely to happen; not what will certainly happen or has happened.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great discussion! I agree that my original synopsis of (B) was hasty, but that's because I was evaluating it from the perspective of "WHY do lines 5-9 exist", not "WHAT do lines 5-9 say".

WHY do lines 5-9 exist? To support the previous sentence. So as soon as the answer choice began with "undermine", I felt confident it was moving in the wrong direction.

This question type is about the PURPOSE of a detail, not the detail. (B) is the traditional trap answer on this type of question, too dialed into the content OF the line reference. Meanwhile, the correct answer is usually focused on how the line reference connects to surrounding content.

(But I do agree that there are sometimes exceptions when the correct answer to these questions expresses something that IS actually contained within the line reference itself.)

As one of the previous posters said, we can rest easy knowing that (B) is inaccurate, because there's not textual support that the author was INTENDING to undermine a claim, a claim that was never said.

(B) looks more to me like an Inference answer ... from lines 5-9, we could infer that "efficient energy use alone is probably not an effective means of addressing environmental problems caused by increased energy demand".

If we're focused on the question stem's desire for WHY the author uttered 5-9, we really need look no further than "for example". The purpose of any sentence that begins "for example" is to exemplify/illustrate/elaborate upon the previous idea.

The last poster was concerned with the use of the word "evidence", seemingly interpreting "evidence" to be reserved for demonstrable facts. Evidence, on LSAT, can take the form of any supporting idea.

If I am predicting that "We'll probably see Sue when we go to Yogurtland", it's evidence to say "I hear she likes frozen yogurt".

That sort of secondhand, anecdotal evidence certainly isn't as trustworthy as a rigorous scientific study, but it still qualifies as evidence.

In the case of lines 5-9, the "are expected" seemed to me to imply that these air pollutant figures are scientific projections.

If I were trying to convince you that "you will not be able to see the solar eclipse next week", I could call upon evidence of the projected orbit/rotation of the earth and how it is expected to be oriented in relation to the sun and the moon next week.

But more simply, any time you substantiate a claim by providing an example, you are providing evidence for the original claim.

Hope this helps.