Question 19

The author of Passage 1 uses the phrase 'That's right' to acknowledge that a claim may be surprising.

The phrase 'That's right' indicates the author's awareness that their assertion about high-tech, chemically assisted agriculture being beneficial for environmentalists may come as a surprise to some readers. It serves to validate the statement while simultaneously engaging the audience's attention.

A) acknowledge that a claim may be surprising

This option is correct as the phrase 'That's right' suggests that the author is aware that the idea of chemically assisted agriculture being an ally to environmentalists might challenge preconceived notions. The use of this phrase acts as a bridge to reinforce the author's argument while prompting readers to reconsider their stance.

B) confirm that a prediction was accurate

This option is incorrect because the phrase does not relate to confirming a prediction. Instead, it is used to highlight the author's perspective, rather than validating a specific forecast or outcome. The context of the statement does not involve any prior predictions being referenced.

C) concede that a criticism has merit

This option is incorrect as the author is not conceding any criticism. The phrase 'That's right' does not imply acceptance of opposing views but rather seeks to fortify the author's position on the necessity of using high-tech agriculture to support biodiversity.

D) emphasize that a debate has been settled

This option is also incorrect because the phrase does not suggest that the debate surrounding agricultural practices is resolved. Instead, the author acknowledges a controversial stance, indicating an ongoing discussion about the best approaches to agriculture rather than signaling closure on the topic.

Conclusion

The phrase 'That's right' effectively acknowledges that the author's claim may be surprising to the audience, reinforcing the complexity of the discussion surrounding agriculture and environmentalism. All other options misinterpret the intent of the phrase, failing to recognize its role in prompting readers to reconsider their views on the relationship between agricultural practices and environmental conservation.