vjsharma25 wrote:
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?
Thank you
vjsharma25 for posting such an amazing question.
Argument - There are 10 environmental problems. Out of these 10 there are "N" problems caused by government mismanagement and "10-N" problems caused by factors other than govt. mismanagement.
To address the "10-N" problems --> we need to make major changes in consumer habits --> to make these major changes we need to make them financially attractive for consumers.
Conclusion: Unless we make the solutions to the "10-N" problems economically enticing --> very few ecologically problems of the 10 problems will be solved.
Note: We are jumping from providing solution to "10-N" problems to stating that very few of the 10 problems will be solved. How do we know that? We can make such a statement only if "10-N" constitutes a majority. If N = 7, 10-N = 3, then majority of the problems can be solved without the requirement to make them financially attractive.
(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement.
- This is exactly what is stated in the note. N is a very small number in front of 10. Thus majority of the problems = 10-N. Hence unless we make the 10-N financially attractive majority of 10 problems will not be solved.
- Correct
(B) No environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible.
- Negate: some "N" problems have solutions that are economically feasible.
- These additional N in fact strengthen the conclusion. Now, in addition to the "10-N" problems that require a financially attractive solution, we have few problems from the "N" category, further adding to the problems that require a financially attractive solution.
- Wrong
(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing.
- Negate: Major changes cannot be made economically enticing --> Thus out of "10-N" problems we are saying 80% of 10-N problems do not have a financially attractive solution. This means we are further strengthening the fact that very few problems can actually be solved.
- Wrong
(D) Most environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems.
- We have two category of environmental problems - a. solved by govt b. not solved by govt.
- There is no mention of "major ecological problems" plus their impact on either of the two categories.
- Wrong
(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits.
- IMO this is just a restatement of the conclusion.
-Wrong