Main-point questions

В этом виде вопросов вывод к параграфу ярко не выражен, то есть он содержится в целом во всем тексте. Вашим заданием будет выбрать из 5 вариантов ответов тот, который наиболее подходит на «роль» вывода. Прежде чем выбрать ответ, задайте себе следующие вопросы:

«В данном отрывке текста автор убеждает нас в том, что …»
«Какой из представленных ответов наиболее указывает на то, о чем говорится в тексте?»

Как определить основную идею аргумента

Данный вид вопроса похож на предыдущий, о котором мы говорили в нашей прошлой статей. Разница в том, что в предыдущем виде вопроса (задание на выявление возможного умозаключения) весь текст так или иначе содержал намеки на вывод. В данном же виде вопросов прямых предпосылок на умозаключение не содержится.

Для того, чтобы понять, о чем ведется речь, прочитаем варианты задний и анализ к ним:

Пример 1 :

In order to save money, many manufacturers of chemical products decide to emit harmful chemi­cals into the environment instead of disposing of them safely. However, these emissions invariably cause health problems for people who live near the source of the emissions. Eventually, manufac­turers engaging in these activities are compelled by our court system to compensate their victims for these health problems.

Теперь познакомьтесь со следующими утверждениями, которые могут быть наиболее вероятными выводами к аргументу.

Основная идея в Примеру 1:
Emitting harmful chemicals in order to reduce costs will result in an increase in a manufacturer's other expenses.
Compare this statement with the following two. No­tice that, unlike the statement above, each of the fol­lowing provides information not already implicit in the passage and that the probability of each one de­pends on certain assumptions. Both statements would be typical wrong-answer choices for a main-point question involving Passage 1.

Умозаключение к Примеру 1 :

• These manufacturers will eventually discon­tinue emitting harmful chemicals into the en­vironment.
• These manufacturers will not save money by emitting harmful chemicals into the environ­ment.

Вы должны научиться находить разницу, между промежуточным выводом и финальным выводом. Обратите внимание на то, что в примере 2 (см.ниже) промежуточный вывод предшествует финальному.

Пример 2:

Some animal-rights activists argue that the media's inaccurate portrayal of bats as dangerous animals threatens the survival of this species, in light of the fact that many animals perceived as threaten­ing to human safety have been hunted by humans to extinction. However, these activists overlook the fact that the global population of bats is actually increasing.

Промежуточный вывод :

It is less likely that an animal will be hunted to extinction if its population is increasing than oth­erwise.

Финальный вывод или основная идея:

The increase in the bat population suggests that the activists7 concern that bats might become ex­tinct might be unwarranted.
The following statements would also be wrong-an­swers to a main-point question involving Passage 2 because they involve inferences, which depend on additional unstated premises.

Пример 3:

Now that you know how to recognize an argument's main point and distinguish it from an intermediate conclusion and from inferences, which require addi­tional premises, attempt the following GMAT-style main-point question, which would be rated average in difficulty level for this question type. As you tackle the question, follow these steps:

1. After reading the passage, but before reading the answer choices, ask yourself: "What's the main thrust of this argument?" Jot down a statement you think expresses the main idea.
2. Scan the answer choices for your statement—or one similar to it.
3. Earmark each answer choice you think requires an inference, or logical step.

Then read my analysis of the question and of each answer choice.

Вопрос: City Official: I cannot deny that sodium monofluoride, which is used in all major brands of toothpaste to help prevent tooth decay, has been shown to be more toxic than lead. Those who op­pose our plan to treat the public water supply with sodium monofluoride cite warnings on the back of toothpaste tubes advising the user to contact a poison control center if the user swallows more toothpaste than needed for brushing. But these same opponents ignore the fact that, even though nobody reads these warnings, virtually no cases of toothpaste poisoning have ever been reported.

Which of the following best expresses the city official's main point in the argument above?

(A) Sodium monofluoride warnings on tooth­paste tubes should be more conspicuous to toothpaste users.
(B) Fluoride in toothpaste is not as toxic as warn­ings on toothpaste tubes would lead users to believe.
(C) Neither fluoridated water nor fluoridated toothpaste contains lead.
(D) Suppliers of public water treated with so­dium monofluoride should not be required to warn their customers about its toxicity.
(E) Fluoridated water is not as toxic as opponents of water treated with sodium monofluoride might claim.

Анализ:
The argument as a whole can be characterized as an attempt to rebut an argument against treating water with sodium monofluoride. To rebut the argument, the city official provides evidence tending to show that sodium monofluoride is not as harmful as some might believe. Choice (E) accurately expresses the main point that the city official is attempting to make. Choice (E) is the best response.
Choice (A) is tangential to the city official's main concern, which is to refute an argument against public water fluoridation.
Choice (B) is the city official's intermediate con­clusion. But the official's ultimate point is that fluo­ridated water, not toothpaste, is less toxic than some might claim.
Choice (C) is likely to be true, based on the in­formation in the first sentence. However, choice (C) is not relevant to the city official's main concern for refuting an argument against public water fluorida­tion.
Choice (D) goes beyond the main point that the city official seeks to make, which is that the city should be allowed to treat its water supply with so­dium monofluoride because it is not as harmful as some might claim. Choice (D) assumes this point, then goes further by arguing that the city need not warn its customers about the hazards of treating water with sodium monofluoride.

Обратите внимание

1. Осторожно анализируйте очевидные ответы.
2. Не одно предложение в тексте не будет цитировать основную идею и вывод.
3. Неправильными являются следующие утверждения:
• Утверждения, которые являются промежуточными выводами
• Утверждения, которые требуют дополнительного умозаключения на основе предпосылки
• Утверждение, которое перефразирует часть текста

Продолжение следует!