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.

1. Which of following is an assumption made in the passage above?
(A) Most businesses in the state have obeyed the regulations embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(B) The economic decline of the state can be attributed, in part, to the effects of the Clean Air Act.
(C) The amount of air pollution in a given area is likely to be proportional to the number of businesses and workers active in that area.
(D) The restrictions on business activity in other states are less stringent than are those embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(E) The Clean Air Act has been only very slightly successful in achieving the goal of reduced air pollution.

2. 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.

#1 Answer = C

Conclusion = biz decline caused decrease in pollution. Assumption is that businesses do have some relation to causing pollution

#2 Answer = C

We are trying to weaken the conclusion. ie maybe something besides biz decrease caused the decrease in pollution. C says that.

1) E because the conclusion states that it is probably that the business decline is responsible for at least half of the decline which means that the Clean Air Act is assumed to have been responsible for at least half of the decline.

2) C because ... I can't really explain it but the other choices seem irrelevant or strengthens the conclusion.

This is how I feel right now...

The assumption is what connects the premise to the conclusion.

Conclusion = "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. "

Premise 1 = "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."

Premise 2 = "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."

Therefore we need to assume here that the decrease in air pollutants to some degree is proportional to the economic decline. 1 C) fits this best.

Those are my picks too. C and B.
_________________

It's not over until it's OVER!

C & C

I will go for C and C.

-n
_________________

hey ya......

C and C

for the second one, B is not as good as C because it was not able to tie the
business close with polution - something needed to weaken the conclusion in the passage