Passage-based Questions

1. Last winter, heavy snowfalls prompted criticism of the Government for failing to ensure that the country is prepared for severe weather. Billions of pounds were lost to businesses through workers being unable to make their journey to work during a week of heavy snowfall. Others felt that these costs should be accepted philosophically. Given that the likelihood of a prolonged period of heavy snow in the UK is very low, it could be said that the high cost of investing in preventative measures would be unreasonable. Governments have to make an assessment of the probability of the event occurring, the cost of preventative measures and the cost of the event happening. In some cases the cost of preventative measures is too high when the risk is low. The recent severe weather is one such case. One might also consider the threats of pandemics such as bird flu, or asteroids hitting the earth, both of which might be considered ëlow risk but high cost.í
Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?
A. The Government has a responsibility to assess risks and costs of possible events.
B. The Government was right not to spend heavily on precautions against prolonged snowfall.
C. The Government should be spending more to protect us against pandemics and asteroids.
D. The Government should have spent more on precautions against prolonged snowfall.
E. The Government should compensate businesses for the billions of pounds lost during a week of snow.

Could someone please explain why the answer is B? I understand how B is a conclusion that can be drawn, but also A. The author says "Governments have to make an assessment of the probability of the event occurring, the cost of preventative measures and the cost of the event happening." Therefore, governments have a responsibility to make the risk-benefit assessment. Isn't that also a conclusion that can be drawn?

2. "Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships. They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.
In the past competitors had to win over and over again to become well known and create a future and a pension plan. These guys now have a future in a year. You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament. In the past it was necessary to play well just to be invited to top events. They started out with little or nothing and were lucky to receive £100 as expenses in one week. But look at what they achieved!"

Which of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage?

A. The standard of play in Britain has declined over the years due to commitments outside the sport.

B. Nowadays, British players are more interested in money than players from other countries.

C. British players in the past were not on friendly terms with opponents.

D. Nowadays, players can make more money from appearances and outside commitments than they do from winning competitions.

E. Nowadays, it is much harder for British players to win a major championship due to commitments outside the sport.

I don’t see how D. is the correct answer. Nothing suggests players nowadays can make more money from other commitments than from competitions. In fact it says in the passage “They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.” which suggests if they win they will make a million dollars.
I chose E. because it seems the players nowadays are less likely to win championships due to their commitments and in the passage it states “Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships”

Q1 - Yes, you are correct that answer A is a correct answer, but read the question: "Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above". Note what I have put in bold. Although answer A is 'correct', it is not the main conclusion of that passage: the main 'takeaway' is that HMG was right not to spend vastly on preparations for this event, which is Answer B.

Q2 - You need to read the passage more carefully. Again, Answer D is clearly the only answer which contains a conclusion which you could draw from what is written in the passage:

"You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament"

It is concerned with knowledge, which is only one aspect of history and is not necessarily causal.

In II the poet is a historical creative power, viz., a cause.

A historical creative power, but he is not the cause for history. He is only a portrayer of history. Passage I says that the main cause for historical events are the people, and Passage III that the main cause is the barbarity of men. Passage II is saying poets give life to history through their writing, but doesn't say they are the cause of historical events. There is a stark contrast between Passage II and PassageI&III. Passage IV on the other hand, says modern history began with an influx of knowledge, therefore it is concerned with the cause/beginning of modern history.