weathercoins wrote:If anybody has PT 51 still out, mind explaining LR2 (Section 3) #12 to me? Only LR problem I had, and I don't get why A is the answer (other than process of elimination). If anti-environmentalists are NOT true dissidents, why is the position controversial? Is the entire second half of what the commentator says just irrelevant to the answer?
This is a good example of how a simple argument can get convoluted. I think the difficulty lies in knowing what Winslow's idea is + what the case is for commentator.
Winslow is saying newspapers just print stuff that seems daring, rather than they have some sort of inherent anti-environmentalist bias.
The commentator is saying anti-environmentalism, while it seems to challenge the orthodoxy, is really attacking an unorthodox view (interpreted from "hardly orthodox").
So essentially what Winslow is saying is the case.
A) We can infer this
B) Seems to contradict "may have succeeded in promoting themselves as renegades"
C) Quite the opposite of this
D) First issue I had was critics of environmentalism doesn't necessarily = the newspaper. This is a close contender, but prevailing is a bit too strong for MSS questions. We don't know if the prevailing political view is anti-environmentalism, just that environmentalism isn't considered orthodox.
E) Ballsy prediction, unsupported.