generis wrote:
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.
Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?
A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.
B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.
C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.
E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.
CR50611.02
The key to answering this question is to not move forward to the answer choices until you have a clear grasp of the stimulus and of the gaps. Otherwise, the answer choices will likely confuse you further.
For the sake of simplicity, lets tag 'a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions' as 'A' and 'an expansion of global economy' as 'B'
Stripped down to its bare, the argument is stating that:
Premise: With current technologies, both 'A' & 'B' are not possible.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is NECESSARY that GOVERNMENT SPENDING be made in research to improve technologies so that both 'A' and 'B' happens.
That is a huge gap from the premises to conclusion. Take particular note of the following two elements about the gap:
1. The conclusion talks about GOVERNMENT SPENDING; and
2. That such Government Spending is NECESSARY (but not necessarily sufficient) to achieve both 'A' and 'B'
So an answer choice which when negated indicates that GOVERNMENT spending is not NECESSARY to achieve both 'A' and 'B' will be a strong contender.
With this level of understanding, we can quickly see that Answer choice B) must be true - its negation invalidates the NECESSITY of government spending to achieve both 'A' and 'B'.
One particular thing to note with B) - In its current form, the language strength is quite weak. 'more likely' can include any range from 51% to 100%. When we negate 'more likely' it becomes 'less likely' which is a range of 0% to 49%. However, as per the argument's conclusion government spending is NECESSARY (i.e. 100% needed) to achieve both 'A' and 'B'. Therefore the negation of this answer choice destroys the argument by implying that government spending is not 100% needed.