Can somebody please tell me why C is wrong?
Premise 1:- An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an underwater oil pipe to complete the supply route of an oil system connecting the source of the oil to various power stations. (Suggestion by Engineering Firm)
Premise 2:- The route crosses a 1.3 mile wide river, and to build a bridge for the pipe would cost twice as much as it would to lay the pipe on the riverbed.
Premise 3:- In order to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by ruptures between the pipe's segments due to water pressure, a fairly likely occurrence at some point in the pipe's duration of use,
Conclusion: - the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge.
(A) – Incorrect as the first is not circumstance and second is not contradicting any position.
(B) Incorrect as the first does provide the description of a certain factor but it is not weakening the view point mentioned in the 2nd Bold Face
(C) – This choice is very close to correct choice, but the point which is incorrect is the statement “comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument’s conclusion”. The second bold statement is correct
(D) – It is important here to understand what position the first bold statement is supporting, because once you understand the position, you will understand the second bold statement also. The position here referred is “the low cost associated with laying of pipe on the river-bed” . The first statement indeed is evidence in support to above mentioned position and the second bold statement is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position because the second bold statement informs why you cannot have underwater oil pipline. So statement D is correct answer
(E) – The first bold statement is not a proposal, it is a comparative statement or fact and further the second bold statement is an independent statement and it is not strengthening the proposal mentioned in the first bold statement.