yuvrajpratap wrote:
United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.
The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
(A) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(B) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
(C) The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.
(E) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.
First we'll read through the argument to get the summary quickly, "United Energy built wind farms instead of oil wells, a plan environmentalists did not expect. Environmentalists believes UE values the environment. However, UE's plan is a long term profitable financial decision."
Next we'll find the conclusion, except we see multiple conclusions. One from the environmentalists "UE has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns" and the argument's conclusion "UE may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals".
Now we'll look at the second phrase, "UE has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns", which supports the environmentalists conclusion in the first phrase.
A, B, and E can be eliminated since they call phrase 1 the argument's conclusion.
D is incorrect about the second phrase, it's not a consideration in support of that conclusion the second phrase IS that conclusion.
C is remaining and the most correct.