sandipan.mondal wrote:
Which of the following best completes the passage below?
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.
(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
This question might seem very elementary, but I have a slight problem with it. The OA is (B). It is logical, but I'm not sure why (B) is really required if the countries are not bothered whether or not specific damage can be attributed to a particular effluent. Shouldn't (D) perhaps be an option?
This is an interesting question. The North Sea has a system of complex maritime borders shared by the countries surrounding it. (I work in the North Sea / Baltics area)
Now, coming back to the question - There is a proposal to have a blanket ban on "effluents", which simply means that the conference members want to restrict the "discharge of pollutants" in the North Sea. There are two conditions -
1. Members want to make a broad list of pollutants whose discharge will be controlled/banned.
2. However, the members don't want the blanket ban on effluent discharge into the sea to be excessively harsh, whereby it will affect the commercial activities (Ship, Oil Rigs, etc.) in the area.
We need to think like a conference member such that - "What rule should we make, such that - Both the above conditions are met?"
Between Option B and D -
Option B - "any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage"
This says -
If a chemical or an effluent will not cause any damage, then it will not be included on the list, AND
If the chemical is not on the list, then it is not an excessively harsh measure adopted by members.
Option D - "all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present"
This is specifying the quantity of the pollutant, but the argument is about making a list of banned chemicals, not "THE QUANTITY OF CHEMICALS THAT WILL REACH/POLLUTE THE NORTH SEA"
So, B is the best option.
Hope it helps.
==========
You can learn anything! - Sal Khan