Need a better answer explanation to a TPR CARS question

[HaverfordSquirrel]

(from TPR CARS workbook)

The correct answer is D but I selected A. To paraphrase, Paragraph 3 states that the US can't provide for its own needs for raw silk and rubber. It seems the paragraph is implying that America will not decrease their consumption and continue to rely on exports --- American is "far from independent of the outside world." That's why I chose A.

I was deciding between answers A and D, but the passage doesn't even discuss any possible negative economic effects and instead only talks about the positive effects. Therefore I thought this passage would do a poor job answering question D...

I would love a good explanation about the reasoning behind the right answer. Also, any CARS tips related to my issue with this question would be great. TPR answer key isn't really helping me. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[femmegoblue]

You are drawing too much from what's actually written if you choose A. All we know is that it relies on other countries for silk and rubber. The passage doesn't talk at all about the fate of that consumption in the US, and that fact was only used in support of a different claim. I think you are making the "classic" mistake of drawing too much from what's written.

D is directly addressed in the passage. It states that "If the political boundaries coincided with the economic boundaries....the US would be far less rich than it is" meaning that an INCREASE in fluidity between states will result in a positive outcome, which directly answers the question posed in D. So this passage provides support/answers the question by showing it is not likely. You see what I mean?

 

[jazzmetal]

I was deciding between answers A and D, but the passage doesn't even discuss any possible negative economic effects and instead only talks about the positive effects.

I agree with @femmegoblue - "raw silk and rubber" is mentioned as an example (of a deficiency in natural resources), not a theme. Also, "Is there likely to be a negative economic effect from [more interaction across state lines]?" is a question, not an assertion; the passage would answer this question with a "No - the effect is likely to be positive."

The question asked about statements, plural. Seems to me like a flavor of "What's the main theme of this passage?" in which case you'd be looking for an answer that's broad in scope, not directed toward any particular detail.

Does this help?

 

[HaverfordSquirrel]

Yes, all the feedback have been very helpful! Thank you!

 

[5words]

yeah, and it doesnt get better than TPR, you;re titled made me laugh a bit. TPR has the best explanations ever!