Kritisood wrote:
Hi
ScottTargetTestPrep, I solved this question with your approach, took a good 5 mins to understand it. The below was my reasoning. Do let me know if this is correct:
(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
We dont know why and how exactly they disguise their true motives. Here, we are only concerned with the the "so called environmentalists".
(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.
Again "people" and "lies elsewhere" is vague and doesnt touch our point of "environmentalists"
Ans choice A solves these two queries.
Thanks
Hi Kritisood.
I think you went too far in saying that the statements don't 'touch our point of "environmentalists."' The environmentalists are certainly people who "say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds." So, the category of people mentioned in (E) could include the environmentalists, and even (B) could be connected to the environmentalists, though that (B) is connected to the environmentalists is certainly not clear.
So, topic or "scope" does not fully support eliminating choices (B) and (E).
What does support eliminating those choices is that neither choice says something NECESSARY for connecting the argument's evidence to its conclusion.
It is not HAVE to be the case that people whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed ALWAYS try to disguise their true motives, in order for the evidence to support the conclusion that the environmentalists are disguising their true motives. Even if such people only SOMETIMES disguise their true motives, the environmentalists could be doing so.
Similarly, it does not HAVE to be the case that, when people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern ALMOST ALWAYS lies elsewhere in order for the evidence to support the conclusion that the environmentalists' true concern is not the bird migration patterns. It merely has to be the case that, IN THIS ONE CASE, the real concern of the people who say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds lies elsewhere.
Now, let's consider choice (A). In order for the argument to work, does it have to be the case that, as (A) says, not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment. For sure it does, because, if it were the case that EVERY time the environmentalists opposed a development proposal they truly believed it to pose a threat to the environment, then the environmentalists would not have been masking an agenda, and so, the evidence presented would not support the conclusion drawn.