Columnist: Much of North America and western Europe is more heavily fo

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A)

The columnist points out that much of Northern America and Western Europe is more heavily forested, has less acid rain, and has better air quality now than 50 years ago, and grants that the improvement may be largely due to policies advocated by environmentalists. The columnist then concludes that the improvement lends support to people who argue that excessive restriction of the exploitation of resources may make it economically difficult to pay for the future protection of the environment. In layman’s terms, the environment is better, but even though that may be because of pro-environment policies, if we don’t use our natural resources then we may not have enough money in the future to continue to apply pro-environment policies.

Remember that in any argument your primary task is to identify the conclusion and supporting premises, and assess the validity of the argument. If you sensed any holes in the argument (and there are holes, such as that 50 years over a limited area is not necessarily enough of a sample to prove the claims, or that the improvement may not have necessarily have come from the policies) remember that in a Strengthen question you can look for an answer that eliminates such a gap in logic.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If nations did not sustain their wealth by using their natural resources, then the idea that overly protecting their resources would lead to a lack of wealth would be false. Thus, this answer supports the claim that restricting the use of natural resources may diminish the wealth necessary to sustain the pro-environment policies.

Answer choice (B): Technology is extraneous to the issues dealt with in the stimulus, so this choice is irrelevant and incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Regardless of the cause of the majority of ecological disasters, humans can still be the cause of this particular disaster. Thus, this answer choice does not affect the issue of environmental policy.

Answer choice (D): This was the most popular incorrect answer. This answer dwells on what would have occurred in the past had a different approach been used whereas the argument indicates that finances may dictate a certain course of action in the future. Aside from the fact that what would have occurred in the past does not mean the same would occur in the future, this answer does not strengthen the reasoning because it is not relevant to the argument that excessively strict policies may result in insufficient funds to sustain those policies.

Some students see this answer as strengthening the idea that the policies of the environmentalists have resulted in the environmental improvement, but the author already conceded that point in the argument so it needed no further support.

Answer choice (E): This choice suggests that a concern for the environment causes an increase in wealth. If this is the case, then the restrictive environmental policies are beneficial, and it may be that they do not diminish the nation’s wealth. Thus, this answer choice weakens the reasoning in the stimulus.­