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!!