The solution to any environmental problem that is not
the result of government mismanagement can only lie
in major changes in consumer habits. But major
changes in consumer habits will occur only if such
changes are economically enticing. As a result, few
serious ecological problems will be solved unless the
solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows
logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result
of government mismanagement.
(B) No environmental problems that stem from
government mismanagement have solutions
that are economically feasible.
(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made
economically enticing.
(D) Most environmental problems that are not the
result of government mismanagement are major
ecological problems.
(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved
by major changes in consumer habits.

I fell for C

Good analysis gmat1220.

few serious ecological problems solved --> solutions NOT made economically enticing.

NOT economically enticing--> NOT major changes in consumer habits

NOT major changes in consumer habits--> NOT solution to any environmental problem (not the result of government mismanagement)
=> few serious ecological problems solved--> RESULT OF GOVERNMENT MISMANAGEMENT

HENCE A.
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

The solution to any environmental problem that is not
the result of government mismanagement can only lie
in major changes in consumer habits. But major
changes in consumer habits will occur only if such
changes are economically enticing. As a result, few
serious ecological problems will be solved unless the
solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows
logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Reasoning: Premise:If Changes in CH are ECO ENTI => Changes CH will occur => Solu to EP
Conclusion: NOT TILL Solution is Eco enticing => Few Solu. will be there.

IMO the assumption should be the GAP here , premise talks about the "Changes in CH to be ECO ENT",although conclusion talks about the "Solution be ECO Enti".

We need a statement that links that "Solution Enticing" is equivalent to "changes in CH are enticing",but we don't have that so we 'll use ANT.

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result
of government mismanagement. OOS ( On't care about what govt. misma could do)
(B) No environmental problems that stem from
government mismanagement have solutions
that are economically feasible. (Feasible - where we talk abut that) OOS
(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made
economically enticing. (Negate: If major changes in CH cannot be made ECO ENT,still the solution could be ECO ENT doesn't deny the conclusion)
(D) Most environmental problems that are not the
result of government mismanagement are major
ecological problems. OOS
(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved
by major changes in consumer habits. OOS (Even if few could not be solved , other few is there to solve) OOS

Source of the question?????
_________________

Plz Correct me if I am deviating somewhere!!
Consider KUDOS if the post was informative!!

I have attempted many such questions in my previous attempt at GMAT but such twisted logical questions have never helped me in the real test. They are just good for nothing unless one is going for LSAT as well, after the GMAT. I have wasted nearly 15 mins onto this but I missed looking at the tags associated.

My reasoning to discard option E is following:
1) It seems to be an inference rather an assumption.
2) It need not to be true so a bad inference in that sense as well.

If all the serious ecological problems are not economically enticing (this case is not ruled out from the argument), this statement need not to be true.