Which sentence best expresses the author’s claim regarding Policy X?

Which sentence best expresses the author’s claim regarding Policy X?

• A. Policy X is an ambitious plan to reduce emissions by 30%.
• B. Policy X is unnecessary and weak.
• C. Policy X will easily meet all targets without effort.
• D. Policy X is a minor adjustment with limited impact.

Answer: (A)

Grasping what the author claims about Policy X means focusing on the statement that presents the author’s stance and expected impact. The best sentence conveys a clear, evaluative judgment about the policy and includes a concrete target, showing the author’s view of how significant Policy X should be. Saying that Policy X is an ambitious plan to reduce emissions by 30% does just that: it frames Policy X as ambitious and sets a specific, measurable goal. This combination—an assertive judgment coupled with a numerical target—signals a strong, positive claim about the policy’s scope and potential impact, which is exactly what the author is likely asserting. The other options shift the stance in ways that don’t match a strong advocacy of Policy X. Describing it as unnecessary and weak expresses opposition rather than support. Claiming it will easily meet targets without effort implies an unrealistic certainty that downplays complexity. Calling it a minor adjustment with limited impact minimizes the policy and again does not align with presenting it as ambitious with a concrete goal. Because they fail to embody that assertive, goal-oriented stance, they’re not as good at capturing the author’s claim as the chosen sentence.

Grasping what the author claims about Policy X means focusing on the statement that presents the author’s stance and expected impact. The best sentence conveys a clear, evaluative judgment about the policy and includes a concrete target, showing the author’s view of how significant Policy X should be.

Saying that Policy X is an ambitious plan to reduce emissions by 30% does just that: it frames Policy X as ambitious and sets a specific, measurable goal. This combination—an assertive judgment coupled with a numerical target—signals a strong, positive claim about the policy’s scope and potential impact, which is exactly what the author is likely asserting.

The other options shift the stance in ways that don’t match a strong advocacy of Policy X. Describing it as unnecessary and weak expresses opposition rather than support. Claiming it will easily meet targets without effort implies an unrealistic certainty that downplays complexity. Calling it a minor adjustment with limited impact minimizes the policy and again does not align with presenting it as ambitious with a concrete goal. Because they fail to embody that assertive, goal-oriented stance, they’re not as good at capturing the author’s claim as the chosen sentence.