What is the author's likely purpose if a passage argues for stricter pollution controls to protect public health?

• A. To compare different pollution policies.
• B. To inform about pollution statistics.
• C. To entertain with a story about pollution.
• D. To persuade the reader to support stricter pollution controls.

Answer: (D)

When a passage argues for stricter pollution controls to protect public health, the main aim is to persuade readers to adopt a viewpoint or take action. The author is not just sharing information or telling a story; they’re making a case that stronger rules are needed and encouraging readers to support them.

This is why the strongest answer is to persuade the reader to support stricter pollution controls. You’ll see the language pushed toward action—calls to adopt policies, emphasize health benefits, and motivate someone to agree or join the cause. Even if statistics or evidence are present, their purpose is to back up a recommendation and move opinion.

The other options don’t fit as well. If the goal were to compare different policies, the passage would lay out multiple options side by side without urging a specific one. If it were to inform about pollution statistics, the tone would be more neutral and primarily data-driven, without a push for policy action. If it were to entertain, the writing would focus on amusement or storytelling rather than argument and persuasion.

So the intention behind the passage is clear: to persuade readers to support stronger pollution controls in order to protect public health.