anon1 wrote:
An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an underwater oil pipe to complete the supply route of an oil system connecting the source of the oil to various power stations. The route crosses a 1.3 mile-wide river, and to build a bridge for the pipe would cost twice as much as it would to lay the pipe on the riverbed. In order to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by ruptures between the pipe's segments due to water pressure, a fairly likely occurrence at some point in the pipe's duration of use, the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge.
The first explains circumstances that call the position taken by the author into question; the second holds factual information which contradicts that position.
The first provides a description of a certain factor which may weaken the argument's favored viewpoint; the second is that viewpoint.
The first is a comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument's conclusion; the second is the aim leading to that conclusion.
The first is evidence in support of the position that the argument chooses to undermine; the second is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position.
The first is a proposal that is supported by the position of the argument; the second is further evidence used to strengthen that proposal.
The first explains circumstances that call the position taken by the author into question; the second holds factual information which contradicts that position.
The first provides a description of a certain factor which may weaken the argument's favored viewpoint; the second is that viewpoint.
The first is a comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument's conclusion; the second is the aim leading to that conclusion.
The first is evidence in support of the position that the argument chooses to undermine; the second is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position.
The first is a proposal that is supported by the position of the argument; the second is further evidence used to strengthen that proposal.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The argument presents two possible plans to complete the pipeline: lay it underwater; lay it over the water. The author favors the plan of the bridge. The first boldface portion weakens the bridge option by stating that it's relatively expensive. The second boldface portion is the logical reasoning behind the government's choice to choose the bridge despite its higher cost.
Where in the passage does it imply that the author favors the plan of the bridge? It only says that the government is in favor of the bridge.
Where in the passage does it imply that the author favors the plan of the bridge? It only says that the government is in favor of the bridge.
the trick here is that you are not trying to change or evaluate the argument. Sure there is plenty wrong with the logic but the question asks you about the bolded phrases. Do them one at a time. How does the first sentence fit with the conclusion - The first statemetn somewhat contradicts the conclusion (why would the gov't build a bridge if it were more expensive?). Eliminate C and E for this reason.
the second is supporting information for the conclusion - eliminate A because it does not undermine the position and B becuase it is supporting information, not the viewpoint itself. D is the best answer.