Argument:
Most participants favoured uniform controls on the quality on effluents in conference on environmental threats to the North Sea. This irrespective of the fact whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent.

Pre thinking:
Most participants wants the quality control will happen on all effluents irrespective of the fact whether any environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. So to avoid excessively restrictive controls only those effluents which cause environmental damage should be controlled.

Analysis of answer Choices:

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
Incorrect: Irrelevant as talks about delay and not excessively restrictive controls.

(B) Any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
Correct: this will make sure that only those substances which damage environment will be subjected to control thus preventing control on effluents which are not damaging to environment.

(C) the countries favouring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
Incorrect: Irrelevant .No relation with effluent causing damage and excessively restrictive controls.

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
Incorrect: pollutant damaging North Sea is the problem even if not all of it reached the sea.

(E) Environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
Incorrect: Irrelevant. Argument is about managing the effluent to prevent any environmental damage in future.
_________________

The Kudo please

I also had chosen D. But I might have misinterpreted its meaning...

Choice D said "ALL of any given pollutant...". However, not ALL of the pollutant of one kind need to reach the North Sea to pollute the envinroment. "A fraction of a pollutant" can still cause the pollution. Thus, not a good piece of information.

Had the choice D said "Any fraction of given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present", this would have made this choice a viable answer. Do you guys agree?

A: irrelevant.
C: Irrelevant
E: Irrelevant.

D: this choice is tempting, but doesn't really say establish why controls would be overly restrictive. Its a good contendor but B is much better.


B.

I had a unique issue with this question. I assumed that 'What must, of course, be shown' implied that the reader/I needed to find a reason (negative assumption) that will make the countries to avoid excessively resistive controls. B and D are irrelevant with this angle. Hence, I went with C as the closest.

Only after reading the explanation, realized that it is a suggestion (a guideline) for the process so as to avoid excessively resistive controls.. B clearly wins ( probably that's why the 'of course' was included in the question)

I still feel there are two angles (author's and reader's) to understand this question. Not sure why I should choose one over the other.

I am confused between B & D. Can somebody pls split open these two options.

Can anyone explain the reason behind choosing B?

Tricky one! can anyone help out...