Only a member of the Regionalist party would oppose the bill for a new

IMO, Ans is D.

All non- supporters are from RP. But, from this information, we cannot conclude that every member of RP is a non-supported.

Posted from my mobile device

Author is assuming that all the members of the regionalist party are against the bill but what if some of the members are in the favour of or not against the bill thats what is stated in option D

Ans D

A. Regionalist party members have organized to oppose industrial interests on several other issues. Several other issues does not include the issue at hand, ie a new recycling law that would protect the environment from industrial interests

B. Industrial interests need not oppose the protection of the environment. Out of scope, doesnt affect the conclusion!

C. Past attempts to protect the environment through recycling laws have failed. Does not affect the conclusion!

D. It is possible that some Regionalist party members may not oppose the bill for a new recycling law. Just what we were looking for. This explains why the conclusion is invalidly drawn!

E. Ellen has attended programs and distributed literature prepared by the Regionalist party. Does not affect the conclusion!

Answer is D


KUDOS IF IT HELPED!

The argument concludes that Ellen cannot be a member of the Regionalist party because she supports the bill for a new recycling law that would protect the environment from industrial interests. To point out why this conclusion is invalidly drawn, we need to find a statement that shows that supporting this particular bill does not necessarily mean Ellen cannot be a member of the Regionalist party. Let's evaluate the options:

A. Regionalist party members have organized to oppose industrial interests on several other issues.
- This statement doesn't directly address whether Ellen, who supports this specific recycling law, can or cannot be a member of the Regionalist party. It discusses other issues and actions by the party members but is not directly relevant to the conclusion.

B. Industrial interests need not oppose the protection of the environment.
- This statement suggests that industrial interests might not necessarily oppose environmental protection. While it indirectly addresses the issue of industrial interests, it doesn't directly challenge the conclusion about Ellen's party membership.

C. Past attempts to protect the environment through recycling laws have failed.
- This statement discusses the failure of past recycling laws, but it doesn't directly address Ellen's party membership or her support for this specific bill. It's not directly relevant to the conclusion.

D. It is possible that some Regionalist party members may not oppose the bill for a new recycling law.
- This statement directly challenges the conclusion by suggesting that some members of the Regionalist party may not oppose the bill. If Ellen is one of those members, she could still be a member of the party while supporting the bill. This statement points out the flaw in the argument and is the correct choice.

E. Ellen has attended programs and distributed literature prepared by the Regionalist party.
- This statement provides information about Ellen's involvement with the Regionalist party, but it doesn't directly address the argument's conclusion that she cannot be a member because she supports the recycling law bill. It supports her affiliation with the party.

Option (D) is the correct choice because it directly challenges the conclusion by suggesting that some members of the Regionalist party may not oppose the bill for a new recycling law, which means Ellen could still be a member while supporting the bill.