QUESTION #3 - SOLUTION (As I see the matter, for Question #3,
no answer is correct)
Alpha14 magnus07 and
dushyantaRelevant portions of the passage include:
environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective, have cost less than was anticipated, and have made the economies of the countries that have put them into effect stronger, not weaker.-- environmental regulations are effective, have cost less than anticipated, and have strengthened the economy
America‘s record of protecting species threatened with extinction, which is often depicted as dismal, is in truth enviable. Since 1973, when the Endangered Species Act took effect,-- Since 1973, when a law went into effect, protecting endangered species in the U.S. has been resoundingly successful—enviably so.
advocates at both ends of the political spectrum play [] down [the good news: environmental laws have been successful]. . . . the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.-- the right does not want to acknowledge good news that
shows (proves) that government regulations
(1) are not wickedness incarnate = are beneficial and successful
(2) are affordable (do not cost too much)
THE QUESTIONQuote:
3. If the claims made in the passage are correct, how would politicians on the political right be expected to react to America‘s program to protect endangered species from extinction?
THE OPTIONSQuote:
A. They would extol it because its success is not attributable to governmental regulation.
• No. The passage explains that government regulations, passed in response to heightened consciousness about dangers to the environment, have been central to the successful address of threats to the environment
• The passage credits the Endangered Species act of 1973 (a governmental regulation) with many successes and lists them.
• NOT attributable to government regulation? Barely mentioned.
-- It is true that "the laws, along with private efforts, have been a stunning success" (P2) and that "technical advances" are partly responsible for success (P5)
But those mentions of non-governmental action are general and not tied to preservation of species.
-- A government regulation, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, is credited with success.
• The regulations are mostly responsible for success generally. These regulations are so effective that the right
does not want to talk about them -- "environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective"
• The passage gives us no reason to believe that the right would (1) talk about success or (2) lie about the basis of success
Eliminate A
Quote:
B. They would extol it because its success refutes the pessimistic claims of the political left.
• if the claims in the passage are true, the right is not going to extol ANY success achieved by government regulation.
-- They have been silent. Why would they change?
• nothing in the passage suggests that the right cares about the alleged pessimism on the left.
-- We have no idea what the right thinks about the left's alleged pessimism.
-- We do know that the right does not talk about environmentalism's success.
• This cannot be the answer.
Eliminate B
Quote:
C. They would criticize it because its success was due to costly regulations.
• probably the best of 5 bad answers, though I think (C) is not even remotely close to accurate
• the passage says that the regulations (1) cost less than anticipated; (2) strengthened the economy; and (3) "actually produce benefits at an affordable cost"
• the passage also says that "conservation has been an excellent investment."
• I suppose that the right could
lie about "affordable costs" and "strengthened economies" and "excellent investment(s)"
• I suppose that the right could lie or exaggerate and say that ANY cost is too costly
-- Example #1: the right could argue that one externality is too costly: private landowners who discover a rare animal on their lands are prohibited from using those lands [not actually true but we take the passage at its word -- the government rewards landowners who cooperate with conservation efforts]
-- Example #2: the right could argue that polluters should not have to pay for polluting.
• nothing in this passage says that the regulations are "costly" or that the right believes the regulations are costly.
-- The right is shutting up about the "good news" of environmental regulation because this regulation is not evil incarnate and
IS affordable (last line)
KEEP C? ELIMINATE C? (
My call: Eliminate C.)
Quote:
D. They would criticize it because it has not shown any measurable success.
• if the claims in the passage are correct, then the governmental regulatory program to protect endangered species from extinction has been a measurable success.
From the passage:
[only] seven animal species in North America have disappeared. Several hundred others once considered certain to die out continue to exist in the wild. A number of species, including the bald eagle and the Arctic peregrine falcon have been or are being taken off the priority-protection list.• I suppose that the right could lie about these successes.
-- If such lying were likely, then why is the right not lying NOW?
-- Why is the right being quiet about environmentalism's success now?
Eliminate D
Quote:
E. They would be indifferent towards it
• the right cannot simultaneously be afraid of/hostile towards
and indifferent towards something.
-- To be indifferent is not to care.
-- The right cares. They
don't want to talk about good environmental news because government regulation created it.
They are "afraid." Afraid is not "indifferent."
Eliminate E
Conclusion: The only answer that stands a chance is (C), but its accuracy turns on a guarantee that the right would lie and exaggerate about the program to protect endangered species. So far the right has remained silent. Nothing in the passage suggests that the right is NOT silent or would not be silent about endangered species programs.
This question is not well written.
I think that no answer to #3 is correct.Hope that helps.
(Am I really writing "success of environmentalism" on a day during which
schoolkids are leading strikes in order to protect the planet? I'll be clear: I'm with the kids. )
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!