Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorIdentifying Background Information and Contextual Claims

In marine ecology, for decades conservationists maintained that establishing no-take marine reserves was the single most effective strategy for restoring depleted coastal fish populations. However, recent longitudinal studies reveal that surrounding industrial run-off often invalidates the localized protections of these reserves. Because chemical pollutants impair fish reproductive cycles regardless of fishing boundaries, establishing isolated reserves fails to halt population declines unless catchment-wide pollution controls are simultaneously enacted. Therefore, regulatory authorities should reallocate primary funding from reserve enforcement toward watershed chemical management.

In the argument above, the bolded portion plays which of the following roles?

  1. It provides background context describing a traditional position that sets the stage for the argument's main conclusion.Cevap
  2. B
    It is a premise offered to directly justify the author's final recommendation regarding funding reallocation.
  3. C
    It is an intermediate conclusion derived from recent longitudinal studies to demonstrate the inadequacy of current fishing bans.
  4. D
    It is an objection raised against the author's primary proposal that the argument subsequently attempts to refute.
  5. E
    It provides empirical evidence supporting the claim that industrial run-off impairs fish reproductive cycles.

Cevap

The correct option is the one stating that the bolded portion provides background context describing a traditional position that sets the stage for the argument's main conclusion.
The correct choice accurately identifies the bolded text as background context. The statement introduces a long-held belief ('for decades conservationists maintained...') that establishes the traditional paradigm. The author then introduces new evidence ('However, recent longitudinal studies reveal...') to argue that this traditional focus on isolated reserves is insufficient, leading to the main conclusion that funding should be reallocated.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural components of the passage
Identified four elements: (1) Background context (bolded statement), (2) Counter-evidence/pivot ('However, recent longitudinal studies...'), (3) Supporting premise ('Because chemical pollutants...'), and (4) Main conclusion ('Therefore, regulatory authorities should reallocate...').
Deconstructing the argument structure isolates the logical function of each sentence relative to the author's ultimate claim.
2
Evaluate the specific role of the bolded statement
The bolded phrase ('for decades conservationists maintained...') establishes a historical baseline consensus that the author subsequently qualifies and moves away from.
Claims framed with historical indicators like 'for decades' often serve as contextual background setting up a pivot to a new perspective.
3
Compare against option choices
The option identifying the statement as background context describing a traditional position accurately reflects its role as the backdrop for the author's main policy recommendation.
Background statements introduce the circumstance or historical belief without acting as direct supporting premises for the author's own thesis.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Background Information vs. Active Premises
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Identifying Background Information and Contextual Claims

Bu konudan daha fazla soru