Statement of a United States copper mining company: Import quotas should be imposed on the
less expensive copper mined outside the country to maintain the price of copper in this country; otherwise, our companies will not be able to stay in business.
Response of a United States copper wire manufacturer: United States wire and cable manufacturers purchase about 70 percent of the copper mined in the United States. If the copper prices we pay are not at the international level, our sales will drop, and then the demand for United States copper will go down.
If the factual information presented by both companies is accurate, the best assessment of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the wire manufacturer’s argument
(A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company
(B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company
(C) shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business
(D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business
(E) establishes that even the mining company’s business will prosper if the mining company’s proposal is rejected
(A) involves a judgment based on personal opinion, which is usually (& in this case clearly) wrong.
(B) Don't really see what's circular about it...
(D) Clearly wrong, as the response did give a reason, regardless of the merits of that reason.
(E) Close, but not quite. The miners will still face increased competition if the proposal is rejected; it would be wrong to automatically conclude that the miners will come out of this 'prospering'.
(C) is the best choice for me. The manufacturer describes a logical chain of events that outlines how the miners might be hurt (via decreased demand) by the implementation of the proposal.