Q8 - Letter to the editor: Your article

[Laura Damone]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
ID the Conclusion. Keep your eye out for intermediary conclusions, and be wary of the last sentence. The main point tends to appear before that.

Break down the Stimulus:
The argument opens with a rather confusing criticism of a criticism, stating that the article to which it is responding made an unjust critique of environmental groups. The next line paraphrases the article, and, after the turnaround word "but," the final line gives evidence in support of the criticized environmental group's claim. In supporting the environmental group, the last line also gives evidence supporting the first line which called the article's critique unjust. That makes this first line of text the main conclusion.

Any prephrase?
The main point is not just about the study or the environmental group; it's about the article to which it is responding. That has to be part of the correct answer as well.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) This is the premise.

B) Tempting, but while our letter-writer criticizes the criticism of this claim, that's not the same thing as endorsing the claim. While s/he implicitly endorses the claim, the explicit point is that the article was flawed.

C) There are no prescriptive ("should") statements in this stimulus, so we cannot have a prescriptive statement describe the argument's main point.

D) Also tempting, because it seems like something one might conclude from this information. But in fact, the study is just of the population, not the means that sustain the population, so even if the population is artificially sustained, the study could still be done properly. It is the use of the study by the article that our author takes issue with, not the study itself.

E) Correct! The only answer that explicitly addresses the article to which the letter responds.

Takeaway/Pattern: If an ID the Conclusion question addresses a specific entity, that entity must feature in the correct answer choice.

#officialexplanation

[littlebibliophile]

I am in the midst of reviewing PT 63, and I wrote out an explanation of 8, so I thought I would share it here in case anyone could find it useful.

The writer says that the editor was wrong to criticize the claim that more wolves on V Island are killed by hunters each year than are born. This is because the editor’s criticism was based on the recent study that shows that the total number of wolves on the island has remained constant for 20 years. However, the editor did not account for the fact that environmentalists have been introducing new wolves to the pop each year for 20 years.

(A) is not the main point because the writer never says his/her opinion on the success or failure of the environmentalists.
(B) (S)he also never says that they agree with the environmentalists’ claim, but just that a criticism based only on the misinterpretation of a study is unwarranted.
(C) The writer also never delves into what should be done, so we know this is not the main point.
(D) I found most tempting of the incorrect choices. (D) says that the recent studies indicating the population stability of the wolves are flawed. However, the author never says that the studies themselves are flawed, but rather the editor’s interpretation of the studies is flawed. It could be that the study fully intended to survey the population steadiness with taking the introduced wolves into account.
(E) is correct in saying that the point of this arg is to say that the wolf population’s stability does not warrant the editor's criticism of the environmentalists.

[maryadkins]

Nice explanation! Thanks for sharing.

Another way to rule out (D) is to compare it to the conclusion. (D) doesn't say anything about the article's criticism being unjustified--that's our conclusion, that's what we're looking for.

Great job.