Q. Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.

I also thought that the answer was C. Can you double check the answer please?

an argument which will weaken the stimulus above should minimize the impact of business decline w.r.t the decline in the pollution.



IMO C
_________________

Lahoosaher

C does not strengthen the argument. An answer that strengthens the argument will reinforce why business decline is the cause of declining air pollution. According to C, 95% of the business decline had nothing to do with the air pollution problem to begin with. If 95% of the businesses that are ending didn't pollute to begin with, then this decline in business will have no effect on whether the pollution decreases or increases. Since the conclusion is that declining business DOES cause the declining air pollution, C cannot strengthen that because it shows a very small impact (i.e., 5% of businesses that ended created air pollution therefore, few polluting businesses actually went out of business). Because C shows the decine of business actually had a small impact, it cannot be "probable that the decline in business" caused the decreased air pollution.


_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$.

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

sondenso,

I think you are misreading C. C states that only 5% of the businesses that did decline were businesses that polluted the air. The only way air pollution will go down when business goes down is if those businesses that cease are businesses that pollute the air. Here, C states that only 5% of the businesses that ceased operations actually WERE polluting the air. Since it was a small % of those businesses that failed, the impact of the decline in business should have been slight, therefore underminging the conclusion that the decline in business IS the reason for the decline in air pollution.

With regard to E. It states that the agency responsible for prosecuting these polluting businesses only prosecuted 2. This means that there are still many businesses that are polluting. Furthermore, this answer is out of the scope. It discusses prosecuting businesses and doesn't deal at all with the decline of business. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to as long as it provides a reason other than declining business as the cause, thus weakening the argument, but the fact that such a small number is prosecuted is not any incentive for businesses to stop polluting because only 2 businesses were prosecuted. If that number were 25,000 (or some other high number) then it would make sense a biz would stop polluting the air because they would see a high # being prosecuted and conclude that they too would be prosecuted if they polluted the air, and to avoid prosecution, the business would take steps to stop polluting the air. This would establish some reason OTHER than a decline in business as the cause, but E doesn't do this.


_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$.

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

One more for Clear C.

Well I got C too (1:45)
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

I thought it was C, too.

I believe option C is much better because it proves business declines is not the cause but something else. Where as B proves that acts was more responsible and nothing about the other option(business decline)

Why not D?
Act -> business left -> pollution down
we can infer that Act -> pollution down
Could somebody explain? thanks