Highlight the author’s conclusions:

p2:
the evidence for the environmentalists’ claim is weak.

The extent, then, to which a nation’s quality of life is connected to the size of its international debt must be considered unknown.

***

p1 is all argument, just not the author’s. It starts with “some environmentalists” conclusion and then lays out all their support. You can anticipate the author’s conclusion will be disagreeing with these folks.

p2 is where that disagreement happens. The author leads off with the first part of their conclusion, gives all the support, then fleshes out their conclusion a little more.

Map the wording of the answers to the reference in the prompt, or to the author’s conclusions:

20. Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions.

(A) While some environmentalists maintain…, there is little evidence…

This answer has the exact same two-part structure that the passage has, and it echoes the author’s conclusions beautifully. Slam (A) and move on!

(B) Although some environmentalists maintain…, we can safely conclude…

Love the first part, but our author didn’t “safely conclude”. That doesn’t map to a conclusion that says “must be considered unknown”.

(C) Further study will…

whatever “Further study” is going to do, it wasn’t in the author’s conclusions.

(D) …based upon fundamental misconceptions…

A warm-ish answer for sloppy readers only. That phrase is really specific. The author’s conclusions don’t have any wording that means “misconceptions”.

(E) …but those effects are minor and are offset…

If you picked this you might just be getting tired. This doesn’t align to the author’s argument at all. There was no weighing of pros and cons in there.

(A) is the correct answer.

21. Based on information in the passage, it can be inferred…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. Early in paragraph two the author says different studies got different results, and that some of “the impact…has not yet been studied.” Conflicting research and unstudied impacts are definitely reasons for “lingering controversy”.

(A) …very few countries…

Nothing in the reference we’re looking at in the passage mentions numbers of countries.

(B) the hypothesis has not been fully investigated

This maps well to “has not yet been studied.” I’m keeping this one for sure.

(C) debt must be increased…

This doesn’t say anything about the research or lack thereof, so I don’t see any connection to the reference in the prompt.

(D) environmental degradation is not measurable

The rare answer that obviously doesn’t match anything in the passage AND that’s patently ridiculous based on common sense. Out.

(E) environmentalists cannot agree…

Careful. In the passage all the “environmentalists” are on the same side of the argument. The “precise statement” part also doesn’t map to any statements made in the passage.

(B) is the correct answer.

22. Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the author’s attitude…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. Search ‘domestic’ and find that the reference in the prompt is support for the environmentalists argument that the author pushes back against.

(A) optimism…

Stop. That word would only work if the author agreed with the “reductions” argument.

(B) …may lack the political will…

The author doesn’t argue for these “reductions”, so this wouldn’t “concern” them. There’s also nothing in the passage that sounds close to “political will”.

(C) insistence upon restricting them…

Huh? The author definitely does NOT argue that countries should only reduce spending on health care and education.

(D) …only short-term measures

The author’s argument doesn’t get into weighing short vs. long-term measures.

(E) skepticism…

…is the perfect word to describe an author whose conclusion is only that someone else’s argument is “weak” and the real answer is “unknown”.

(E) is the correct answer.

23. The exports promotion hypothesis…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. It’s in the middle of the first paragraph, and then the author says “Partly because of the greater volume involved, this causes more environmental damage…” The right answer will play part or all of that back.

(B) more goods are produced

You gotta love these short answer choices. It makes it way easier to recognize the winner that maps back to the passage. And this is surely it.

(A) international debt increases

Nope, this whole thing happens “to repay international debt”, according to the author.

(C) timber must be destroyed

Too strong. The author only said that was “One possible scenario”.

(D) goods are produced more cheaply

The author never made any comparison between costs of goods.

(E) higher quality goods are produced

The “quality” of goods is never mentioned, only the “quality of life” and “water quality”.

(B) is the correct answer.

24. Which one of the following is identified in the passage…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. Right after the author says “shift the money away from plans that…have a negative impact…”, they gave a couple examples. The right answer will map to one or all of them.

(C) curtailing road construction

This matches the reference, which says “abandon plans to build new dams or roads”. Boom.

(A) reintroducing traditional…

(B) opening up land for new crops

(D) decreasing spending on sanitation

(E) raising prices on exports

The reference in the passage only mentions the “dams and roads” thing, and “eliminate subsidies that promote fertilizer or pesticide use”. It wants to be pretty clear that none of these map.

(C) is the correct answer.

25. What is the main purpose of the author’s discussion in the second paragraph?

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions.

(A) …can enhance a nation’s quality of life

Maps nicely to a detail in there, but not at all to the author’s conclusions.

(B) …arguments put forward by the environmentalists.

Sounds a lot like the author’s conclusions, doesn’t it?

(C) to propose a study…

Stop. The author doesn’t make any proposal.

(D) to argue that there is no relation…

Not at all! Be careful, saying there’s no evidence for something isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t exist.

(E) to question the sources of evidence…

Tricky, but don’t be fooled. If this wants to be right, the author would have said something like “their research is biased” or “the expert they relied on is a phony”. That’s not the same as saying the evidence just doesn’t establish the conclusion.

(B) is the correct answer.

26. As the phrase “nation’s quality of life” is used…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. The author is disagreeing with “environmentalists”, so that’s the context you should expect the right answer to fit.

(D) level of environmental health

Boom! This captures the disagreement we read about.

(A) balance of trade with other countries

This isn’t mentioned anywhere near where the reference is.

(B) level of domestic spending

This isn’t mentioned anywhere near where the reference is either.

(C) level of international debt

The whole argument is we don’t know if there’s a connection between debt and “quality of life”.

(E) level of economic health

The author only tacitly refers to “economic health”. This is way too broad.

(D) is the correct answer.

27. The passage suggests that the author would be most likely to agree…

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions. There’s too much about “government policy” in the passage to know exactly where to look.

(A) …never has an overall positive effect.

Way too strong. The whole argument is that it could go either way.

(B) …are ineffective.

The author never says anything that matter-of-factly. This would mean subsidies are never ever effective under any circumstances.

(C) …leads to decreased domestic spending.

I think the author’s whole thing is it may or may not lead to those decreases.

(D) …only when they are greater…

There could totally be other situations where debt payments are a problem. They just didn’t come up in this passage. There’s no support for this in there.

(E) A nation can benefit from…

You see the pattern, right? This is the only one with softer wording. Of course the author would agree that it’s possible to benefit from decreasing spending.

(E) is the correct answer.