Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?
(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. (B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. (C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public. (D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas. (E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government. Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?
A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they wannt to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)
B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives. -> this says private players dont agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE
C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public. ->irrelevant here
D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas. -> irrelevant
E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources. -> too specific examples -> this is outside scope of argument since giving ownership to private players does not lead to extinction of condor but other reasons could also lead to.ELIMINATE
the argument talks about changing the leadership to private groups. so if old leaders come take over the leadership of private groups nothing would change eventually as far as conservative objectives are concerned.
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?
A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership.
B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives.
C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public.
D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas.
E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources.
The main point of the argument is that Conversational objectives will be better achieved it it is given to private operators. B states that private owners may not always adopt the best way of achieving Conversational objectives which contradicts the main point of the argument.
The main point of the argument is that Conversational objectives will be better achieved it it is given to private operators. B states that private owners may not always adopt the best way of achieving Conversational objectives which contradicts the main point of the argument.
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government. Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?
A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership.
B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives.
C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public.
D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas.
E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources.
I choose C as my answer. If the private enterprise will need financial contributions from the general public, the the private enterprise will be influenced by the public and will not be applying its typical private enterprise approach.
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government. Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?
A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they wannt to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)
B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives. -> this says private players dont agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE
C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public. ->irrelevant here
D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas. -> irrelevant
E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources. -> too specific examples -> this is outside scope of argument since giving ownership to private players does not lead to extinction of condor but other reasons could also lead to.ELIMINATE
IMO (A)
The explanation you have given is same as given in OG. But I still do'nt understand why A is better than B. Both in A and B, it is indicated that private parties cannot meet the conservation goals. To discard B and choose A we will have to stretch the argument. Anyways OA is A.
OA is A. Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?
A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they want to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)
B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. -> this says private players don't agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE
In my opinion (B) is quite a generic condition and does not clearly pose a threat to conservation of natural resources. But consider (A) those wiling to exploit natural resouces will lead the firms.Hence the main purpose of private take over is flawed.(A) directly attacks the argument .Again negate the same it will support the argument.thanks for the OA.
Conclusion : private groups will manage parks better. Premise : conservation objectives will be taken care better by them if they are put in charge of operating and financing the parks.
So the answer choice should tell us that private groups will not achieve their goal. Most correct answer will be against the premise is that they will not able to conserve the park resources but worsen them. So A.
(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
This answer tells us groups would not do their job properly. But not a strong point like choice A which tells that the private group will abandon all restrictions against exploitation of naturalresources. i.e. it would not conserve but support in exploitation.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.
This is not relevant as it talks about extension of park.
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
Not relevant as it talks about competition and control among private groups. Not directly talking about conservation objective
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources
It talks about some endangered species might die even though private groups put in their efforts. Some positive note on private group. So not the answer.
OA is A. Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?
A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they want to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)
B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. -> this says private players don't agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE
In my opinion (B) is quite a generic condition and does not clearly pose a threat to conservation of natural resources. But consider (A) those wiling to exploit natural resouces will lead the firms.Hence the main purpose of private take over is flawed.(A) directly attacks the argument .Again negate the same it will support the argument.thanks for the OA.
Search
FEBWed
Register
Login | Unanswered | Active topics | Tags list by forum
Oldest
