Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumIdentifying Main Conclusions

Recent state legislation provides substantial tax credits to encourage commercial agricultural enterprises to transition from traditional flood irrigation to advanced subsurface drip systems. Critics argue that these subsidies inappropriately benefit large agribusiness corporations that possess sufficient capital to fund technological upgrades independently. However, subsurface drip systems reduce regional agricultural water consumption by more than 40 percent, thereby safeguarding vital groundwater aquifers during prolonged drought cycles. Because long-term aquifer stability is essential to the region's broader economic viability, state policymakers ought to preserve these irrigation tax incentives despite fiscal objections.

Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?

  1. A
    Adopting subsurface drip irrigation significantly reduces agricultural water consumption and protects regional aquifers during droughts.
  2. State lawmakers should maintain tax credits for agricultural drip irrigation transitions regardless of criticisms regarding corporate subsidies.Answer
  3. C
    Tax incentives represent the single most effective policy mechanism available to state governments for mitigating drought risks.
  4. D
    Opponents of the tax legislation contend that large agribusiness firms do not require state financial assistance to upgrade infrastructure.
  5. E
    Large agribusiness corporations should be excluded from receiving state-funded technological infrastructure subsidies.

Answer

State lawmakers should maintain tax credits for agricultural drip irrigation transitions regardless of criticisms regarding corporate subsidies.
The argument builds toward the recommendation that state policymakers ought to preserve the irrigation tax incentives despite fiscal objections. The reduction in water consumption and long-term aquifer stability serve as supporting evidence for this central assertion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structural role of each statement in the passage.
Identify background context (tax credits), counter-argument (critics' view on corporate benefits), premises (40% water reduction, aquifer stability), and the author's main assertion.
Deconstructing the argument structure distinguishes core premises from the final claim.
2
Locate indicator words and structural pivots.
The pivot word 'However' refutes the critics' objection, and the statement 'state policymakers ought to preserve these irrigation tax incentives...' functions as the ultimate claim.
Indicator words like 'ought to' signal the author's primary recommendation, while preceding claims provide supporting evidence.
3
Evaluate answer choices to match the ultimate main conclusion.
Select the choice that accurately captures the assertion that state policymakers should maintain the tax credits despite fiscal objections.
The correct choice must capture the author's final claim without confusing it with intermediate evidence or opposing views.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Conclusion in Arguments with Opposing Views
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Main Conclusions

More questions from this topic