Question 72 Answer and Explanation _ACT December 2006 Form 63D English Section

Passage V

A Case for Noise Pollution Controls

[1] Talk to friends and neighbors, and you'll have a hard time finding anyone who claims to be in favor of air and water pollution. [2] Our environment is a common resource, something we all enjoy during exciting weekends in the park. [3] We don't tolerate those who exploit or abuse, the public lands we use for recreation, the water we drink, or the air we breathe. [4] Yet many people, who feel strongly, about pollution of these resources are strangely silent about protecting our environment from noise. (64)

Advocates supporting noise pollution controls are concerned about the noise from construction equipment and airplanes. They are also targeting the noise of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, of leaf blowers and loud car sound systems. Some of the effects of excessive noise are already known. The most obvious one is premature hearing loss. Studies indicate a fairer clear link between noise and stress, which experts believe there's a connection between noise and violence. Therefore, there's evidence that noise affects not only humans but animals as well. For these reasons, there's increasing agreement with the view that "good neighbors keep their noise to themselves."

Of course, many people had insisted that they have a right to make noise on their own property. But do they? (72) Do people have a right to dump dangerous chemicals on their land if these chemicals escape into the air or end up in our rivers and reservoirs? The laws say no. Many municipalities have begun to adopt ordinances that limit levels and kinds of noise.

These noise laws specify times when lawnmowers cannot be used, and they restrict when airplanes can take off and land. (74) They crack down on loud car stereos, just as they ban motorized watercraft. (75) These steps suggest that even if the debate about noise controls may be loud, we may eventually end up with a quieter environment.

72. The writer is considering deleting the preceding sentence from this paragraph. Should the sentence be kept or deleted?

F. Kept, because it provides a transition from the opening sentence to the statements at the end of this paragraph.

G. Kept, because it is the first in a series of questions that explain the meaning of noise pollution.

H. Deleted, because the question it poses is never answered in the paragraph.

J. Deleted, because the question is restated in the next sentence and therefore is redundant.

Answer and Explanation

Your Answer is

Correct Answer is F

Explanation

The first sentence says that many people insist that it is ok for them to make noise on their own land, and the second sentence uses an interrogative sentence to say "People really have the right to dump dangerous chemicals on their own land...?" You can add a sentence in the middle But do they "But can they really?" The transition of this rhetorical question better connects the previous sentence with the following question sentence, so it should be retained. The reason for F is explained correctly.