Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaIdentifying Background Information and Contextual Claims

In coastal municipalities facing persistent droughts, regional water authorities historically funded large-scale ocean desalination plants to secure municipal fresh water supplies. However, recent economic assessments reveal that high electricity costs and rapid membrane degradation make long-term desalination operations financially unsustainable without ongoing municipal subsidies. Because reclaimed water filtration systems consume sixty percent less energy and achieve comparable purity standards, city planners argue that municipal investments should immediately pivot entirely toward expanding local wastewater recycling infrastructure. Therefore, municipal councils ought to reject all upcoming budget proposals requesting capital allocations for new desalination facilities.

In the argument presented, the bolded statement plays which of the following roles?

  1. A
    It is a premise offered directly to support the main conclusion that municipal councils should reject new desalination capital allocations.
  2. B
    It expresses the main conclusion of the argument regarding how municipal councils should allocate future water infrastructure budgets.
  3. It provides background information regarding a historical practice that sets up the context for the situation the argument seeks to address.Cevap
  4. D
    It introduces a counterargument that the author attempts to refute using evidence about energy consumption.
  5. E
    It functions as an intermediate conclusion derived from the observation that desalination facilities are financially unsustainable.

Cevap

The statement provides background information regarding a historical practice that sets up the context for the situation the argument seeks to address.
The bolded statement describes how regional water authorities traditionally funded desalination projects. This historical fact does not offer a reason why future proposals should be rejected, nor does it state a conclusion. Instead, it supplies the background context necessary for the reader to understand what current policy the argument aims to re-evaluate.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural breakdown of the passage.
Identify the components: (1) Bolded statement = historical baseline/context; (2) Sentence 2 = factual evaluation revealing current financial problems; (3) Sentence 3 = comparative premise supporting alternative technology; (4) Sentence 4 = main conclusion.
Deconstructing the argument into claims, evidence, and background clarifies each statement's functional role.
2
Evaluate the specific relationship of the bolded statement to the conclusion.
The bolded statement describes how water authorities operated in the past. It does not contain an opinion, a logical deduction, or direct evidence arguing against desalination.
Distinguishing between descriptive background context and logical evidence is required to isolate the correct structural role.
3
Select the choice matching the background role.
The option stating that the phrase provides background information regarding a historical practice setting up the context is the correct structural description.
The bolded sentence sets the stage for why new budget proposals for desalination exist in the first place.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing background context from active premises and conclusions in critical reasoning arguments.
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Identifying Background Information and Contextual Claims

Bu konudan daha fazla soru